UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class 

[ 


Book 

tele, 


Volume 


CONVERSATIONS 

ON 

BAPTISM, 

CONTAINING 

/ ANSWERS  TO  THE  ENQUIRIES 

OF  A 

gottws  Confcm, 

RESPECTING  the  sentiments 

OP  THOSE  WHO  PRACTISE 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 


BY  JAMES  EELLS,  A.  M. 

minister  of  the  gospel. 


‘ Bf* ■ “ }h*  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets  Jes 

hrist  hnnself  heing  the  chief  corner  stone. ’’—St.  Paul, 


UTICA, 

PRINTED  BY  HASTINGS  & TRACY. 

im. 


'L&S'.I 
Ee  l a. 


Northern  District  of  New-  York,  to  wit 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  ninth  day  of  Au- 
gust, in  the  fifty-first  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  A.  D.  1827,  James  Eells,  of  the  said  dis- 
trict, hath  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a book,  the  right 
whereof  he  claims  as  author,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit:— - 
“ Conversations  ©n  Baptism,  containing  answers  to  the  en- 
quiries of  a Young  Convert,  respecting  the  sentiments  of  those 
who  practice  Infant  Baptism.  By  James  Eells,  A.  M.  Min- 
ister of  the  Gospel.  “ Built  on  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner 
stone.”— St.  PauLv  ' 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States* 
entitled  “ An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  secu- 
ring the  copies  of  maps,  charts  and  books,  to  the  authors  and 
proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mention- 
ed and  also  to  the  act,  entitled  “An  act  supplementary  to 
the  act,  entitled  ‘ An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  j 
by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts  and  books,  to  the  au- 
thors and  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein 
mentioned,’  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of 
designing,  engraving  and  etching  historical  and  other  prints.’* 
RICHARD  R.  LANSING, 

Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States 
for  the  Northern  District  of  New- York, 


5#  / A M.  V¥ , ic ft  it  jfr p. 


nB-EBASB. 


Among  the  multitude  of  books  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism, it  is  the  opinion  of  most  ministers,  and  of  many  other 
intelligent  Christians,  with  whom  the  writer  has  convers- 
ed, that  there  is  no  one  to  be  found  exactly  suited  to  the 
state  of  young  converts , who  have  never  attended  much  to 
any  religious  subject,  who  have  little  opportunity  to  read, 
and  having  doubts  respecting  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism, are  desirous  of  knowing  the  arguments  in  support  of 
this  doctrine,  and  are  determined  to  govern  their  faith  and 
practice  solely  by  the  word  of  God.  The  current  publica- 
tions are  too  voluminous,  or  too  obscure,  or  too  much 
tinctured  with  a controversial  spirit,  or  they  are  not  upon 
a plan  sufficiently  familiar  and  interesting  to  young  per- 
sons, to  meet  the  case  under  consideration.  An  attempt 
to  remedy  these  evils,  and  to  present  a work  exactly  suited 
to  this  class  of  persons,  the  writer  well  knows,  is  attended 
with  many  difficulties  ; not  the  least  of  which  are  to  decide 
judiciously  what  things  to  omit , of  all  that  might  be  perti- 
nently said  on  this  subject ; and  how  to  exhibit  the  most 
essential  points  in  the  plainest  and  clearest  light,  in  a man- 
ner sufficiently  concise,  and  in  language  suited  to  the 
minds  of  those  for  whom  it  is  particularly  designed.  How 
far  he  has  succeeded  in  attaining  this  object,  must  be  left 
for  those  to  judge  who  are  disposed  to  peruse  the  follow- 
ing  pages.  The  leading  object  of  what  is  here  written,  is 
to  confirm  and  illustrate  the  doctrine,  that  the  church  of 
God  is  spiritual  or  holy ; being  established  upon  a spirit- 
ual or  holy  covenant , both  as  relates  to  its  requirements 
and  promises.  Of  course,  that  it  must  be  the  same  essen- 
tially, both  under  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations. 
The  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  follows  as  a consequence. 


4 Preface. 

Having  examined  the  scriptures,  particularly  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, with  peculiar  care  upon  this  point,  and  finding 
what  appears  to  him  the  clearest  and  most  abundant  evi- 
dence of  the  truth  of  this  doctrine,  especially  as  it  relates 
to  the  church  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  consi- 
dering this  as  the  main  pillar  in  support  of  infant  baptism, 
the  writer  has  here  presented,  summarily,  the  result  of  his 
enquiries.  He  has  chosen  the  form  of  familiar  conversa- 
tion, as  being  the  most  interesting,  particularly  to  young 
persons,  and  as  affording  an  opportunity  for  the  clearest 
illustrations.  He  has  endeavored  to  maintain  a spirit  of 
Christian  meekness  and  candor,  when  alluding  to  his 
brethren  who  advocate  different  sentiments.  He  sincere- 
ly hopes  that  what  is  here  presented  to  the  public  will  not 
be  instrumental  of  exciting  animosity ; but  that  by  leading 
to  a candid  and  faithful  searching  of  the  scriptures,  the 
result  may  be  subservient  to4he  cause  of  truth  and  right 
eousness. 


eoufcevsattous  on 


CONVERSATION  I. 


Containing  a general  vieiu  of  the  Church  under  the  Jew- 
ish Dispensation;  showing  that  none  but  believers 
were  in  covenant  with  God,  or  could  have  any  right  to 
covenant  blessings  * 

Minister. —Good  morning,  my  young  brother : I am 
glad  to  see  you  at  my  house.  Do  you  enjoy  the  presence 
of  God  now  as  much  as  you  have  done  ? 

Convert.— I have  not  enjoyed  much,  Sir,  for  some  days 
past.  My  mind  has  been  exercised  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism ; and  I have  come  to  you,  as  my  pastor,  to  present  a 
number  of  enquiries  on  this  subject,  which  I feel  to  be  ve- 
ry important. 

Min. — I will  cheerfully  give  you  a view  of  my  senti- 
ments, with  the  scriptural  grounds  on  which  they  rest,  in 
answer  to  any  enquiries  that  you  may  wish  to  make.  But 
you  must  carefully  examine  the  scriptures  for  yourself,  and 
see  that  you  are  established  on  that  sure  foundation. 

Con. — That,  Sir,  has  always  been  my  determination.  I 
would  therefore  enquire,  what  evidence  you  find  in  the 
word  of  God  to  support  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  ? 

* Tbe  word  right,  in  this  place,  does  not  imply  that  believers 
have  any  worthiness  which  entitles  them  to  favor  from  God — 
for  they  deserve  nothing  but  evil.  All  temporal  as  well  a&  spi- 
ritual blessings  are  bestowed  on  them  as  a free  gift,  only  for 
the  sake  of  Christ.  Neither  do  they  ever  become  believers, 
or  do  any  thing  which  God  accepts  as  obedience,  except ‘'so 
far  as  their  hearts  are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  'The  word, 
right  means  only  that  they  have  an  interest  in  the  promises^* 
God’s  gracious  covenant. 


6 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

Win . — A leading  argument  in  support  of  this  doctrine* 
is  derived  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  recorded  in  the 
1 7th  chapter  of  Genesis. 

Con. — How,  Sir,  is  that  covenant  connected  with  Chris- 
tian baptism  ? 

Min .■ — Baptism  is  the  sign  or  token  of  our  covenant  re- 
lation to  God,  and  of  our  interest  in  the  blessings  of  that 
covenant ; and  this  is  the  covenant  which  was  made  with 
Abraham. 

Con.— What,  Sir,  are  we  to  understand  by  this  cove- 
nant* and  by  the  sign  or  token  of  it  ? 

Mm.— The  word  covenant  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its 
common  acceptation*  as  denoting  an  agreement  between 
two  parties,  in  which  certain  things  are  proposed  by  one 
party  to  be  done  by  the  other  ; and  certain  benefits  promi- 
sed to  those  who  comply  with  these  proposals.  A cove- 
nant consists  of  twro  parts,  requirements  and  promises, 
The  requirements  state  the  things  to  be  done ; and  the 
promises  state  the  benefits  to  be  enjoyed  by  those  who 
comply  with  the  requirements.  The  sign  or  token  of  a 
covenant  is  the  external  rite  or  mark  by  which  the  cove- 
nant is  distinguished  or  known. 

Con. — -But,  Sir,  I do  not  see  how  any  thing  in  this  cov- 
enant can  prove  infant  baptism. 

Min. — Abraham  was  required,  in  this  covenant  transac- 
tion, to  dedicate  himself  and  his  children  to  God,  by  ap- 
plying to  his  children,  as  well  as  to  himself,  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision, which  was  the  appointed  token  of  the  cove- 
nant, (a)  Circumcision  was  abolished  at  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ ; and  baptism  was,  directly  after,  instituted  in  its 
place,  as  a token  of  the  same  covenant.  Baptism  is  now 
in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  therefore  is  to  be  appli- 
ed to  the  same  subjects,  viz,  to  believers,  and  also  to  their 
children. 

Con.— This  argument  rests  wholly  on  the  supposition, 
that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  is  the  same  with  that  on 
which  the  church  of  God  is  now  established.  But  I have 
always  understood  that  these  were  different  Covenants, 
both  in  their  requirements  and  promises  ; that  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  was  only  an  external,  temporal  constitution. 
requiring  nothing  but  external  performances,  and  promis  - 

a Gen  xvii,  11, 


Conversations  on  Baptism , 1 

mg  nothing  hut  temporal  blessings ; and  that  it  included 
the  whole  Jewish  nation,  believers  and  unbelievers. 

Mm.— I know  that  this  is  the  sentiment  of  some ; but 
you,  I trust,  will  not  embrace  it  without  a careful  exami- 
nation. 

Con. — It  is  my  determination  to  examine  this  subject, 
as  I would  hope  to  do  every  other,  both  by  reason  and  the 
word  of  God,  before  I establish  my  sentiments. 

Min. — Is.it  then  either  rational  or  scriptural  to  suppose 
that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and  the  people  of  Israel, 
was  a mere  externals  ceremonial,  graceless  constitution, 
having  no  respect  whatever  to  vital  godliness  ? Did  God 
make  a covenant  for  this  people,  and  with  them,  that  em- 
braced all  his  enemies  and  friends  together,  and  promised 
them  all  the  same  privileges  and  blessings  ? Did  he  give 
them  assurance,  in  this  covenant  transaction,  that  if  they 
would  observe  the  rite  of  circumcision,  and  all  the  other 
rites  of  the  Jewish  law  if  they  would  strictly  attend  upon 
the  forms  of  religion,  which  exhibit  the  appearance  of 
sanctity  ; if  they  would  make  a fair  outside  show,  whatev- 
er wickedness  might  be  in  their  hearts  ; that  he  wrould  re- 
ceive them  and  acknowledge  them  as  his  covenant  people; 
and  he  would  be  their  covenant  God  ? Were  such  the  con- 
ditions on  which  he  promised  to  give  them  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, exalt  them  to  distinguished  honor,  and  grant  them 
peculiar  blessings;  and  that  he  would  be  their  inherit- 
ance ;{a)  and  their  portion  ;(b)  and  would  own  them  as 
his  peculiar, {c)  his  redeemed, (d)  his  chosen  people;  his 
children  ;{e)  his  heritage  his  portion  ;(g)  and  a holy 
people  to  himself  ? ( h ) Did  he  make  such  a covenant  as 
this  with  his  enemies,  and  give  them  all  a title  to  such  cov- 
enant blessings  ? Was  it,  indeed,  the  great  object  of  this 
covenant,  to  hide  all  that  pertains  to  the  life  of  godliness, 
and  to  make  a pompous  display  of  forms  and  ceremonies  ? 
Such  a covenant  would  not  comport  with  the  holiness  of 
God’s  character,  or  the  purity  of  his  commands. . It  would 
not  consist  with  the  spirit  of  his.  moral  government,  or  the 
retributions  of  the  judgment  day. 


a Deut.  ix,  26,  29, 
c,  Deut.  xxvi,  IB. 
a Deut.  xiv,  1,  2. 
g Zech.  ii,  12, 


h Deut.  xxxii,  9.  Jer.  xii,  10. 
d Isa.  xliii,  1,  3,  4,  & xiiv.  21 — 23*. 
f Jer.  xii,  7,0,  9,  10. 
h Deut.  xxvi,  19 


£ Conversations  on  Baptism , 

€V/i.~Xndeed,  Sir,  I never  liked  the  spirit  of  this  sen- 
timent ; for  I never  could  make  it  appear  consistent,  either 
with  the  character  and  commands  of  God,  or  with  any 
thing  that  pertains  to  the  spirit  of  his  moral  government. 

Min . — Such  heartless  ceremonies  were  always  an  abo- 
mination in  the  sight  of  God.  See  how  he  upbraids  the 
Jews  for  such  hypocrisy  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  : — u To 
what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto  me, 
saith  the  Lord  ? When  ye  come  to  appear  before  me,  who 
hath  required  this  at  your  hand,  to  tread  my  courts  ? Bring 
no  more  vain  oblations  ; incense  is  abomination  unto  me. 
Your  new  moons  and  sabbaths,  your  calling  of  assemblies, 
I cannot  away  with.  It  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn  meet- 
ing. When  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I will  hide  mine 
eyes  from  you ; when  ye  make  many  prayers,  I will  not 
hear.”  u Wash  you,  make  you  clean,”  &c.(i)  How  in- 
consistent then  it  must  be  to  suppose  that  these  external 
performances,  alone,  entitled  this  people  to  all  the  bless- 
ings of  God’s  everlasting  covenant  ? 

Con . — -But  all  the  Jews  were  required  to  be  circumci- 
sed, and  to  observe  all  the  rites  of  the  Jewish  law,  whether 
they  were  truly  pious  or  not. 

Min . — They  were  required  also  to  keep  the  moral  law, 
in  all  its  strictness  and  purity.  “ Be  ye  holy,  for  I the 
Lord  your  God  am  holy,” (A:)  is  a command  which  was 
binding  on  each  individual,  as  the  sum  of  all  his  duty.  But 
external  rites,  without  a holy  heart,  God  never  did  require ; 
nor  did  he  ever  accept  of  such  rites  as  obedience.  44  Thou 
desirest  not  sacrifice  ; else  would  I give  it.  Thou  delight- 
est  not  in  burnt  offerings,”  (i.  e.  in  these  external  forms, 
without  right  affections.)  “ The  sacrifices  of  God,”  (those 
which  he  always  requires,  and  which  alone  he  will  accept 
as  obedience),  “ are  a broken  spirit.  A broken  and  a 
contrite  heart,  O God,  thou  wilt  not  despise. ”(Z) 

Con. — But  the  Jews,  as  a nation,  we  know,  were  cir- 
cumcised, and  all  entered  into  covenant  with  God ; yet, 
we  cannot  suppose  they  were  all  pious. 

Min . — Whatever  might  be  the  character  which  they  ac- 
tually sustained,  it  was  the  essence  of  vital  religion  which 

i Isa.  i,  1 1 — 20.  Isa.  lxvi,  3.  Prov.  xv,  8.  Ezek.  xxxiii, 
30—33,  k xliv.  7—9. 

k Ler.  xi,  44,45. 


I Ps,li?  16,  17. 


9 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

they  professed  in  all  their  acts  of  renewing  covenant  with 
God  ; as  appears  manifest  in  the  following  passages : — ■ 
Dent,  xxvi,  16— 19,  xxix,  10 — 29.  Josh.  xxiv.  14 — 

25;  and  1st  Kings,  xxiii,  3.  Without  true  piety  they 
could  not  be  sincere  in  these  covenant  engagements.  If" 
the  whole  of  a Christian  nation  should  now  profess  to  enter 
into  covenant  with  God,  and  become  members  of  the  visi- 
ble church,  it  would  not  prove  that  holiness  of  heart  is  not 
now  required  as  a qualification  for  membership,  though 
nine-tenths  of  the  whole  number  should  prove  to  be  false 
professors. 

Con . — Do  you  suppose,  Sir,  that  all  the  Jews,  who  were 
not  pious,  were  false  professors  or  hypocrites  ? 

Min. — God  always  regarded  them  as  sustaining  this^ 
character.  He  calls  them  an  “hypocritical  nation. ”(m) 
“ Every  one”  (he  says)  “ is  an  hypocrite  and  an  evildo- 
er.”^). u When  he  slew  them,  then  they  sought  him ; and 
they  returned  and  enquired  early  after  God ; and  they  re- 
membered that  God  was  their  rock  and  the  high  God  their 
Redeemer.  Nevertheless,  they  did  flatter  him  with  their 
mouth,  and  lied  unto  him  with  their  lips  ; for  their  heart 
was  not  right  with  him  ; neither  were  they  steadfast  in 
his  covenant. ”(o)  Claiming  a relation  to  God,  as  their 
God  and  their  Redeemer,  while  their  heart  was  not  right 
with  him,  the  Psalmist  declares,  was  only  flattery  and  lying. 
The  reason  is  obvious  ; they  had  no  right  to  such  a claim. 
God  never  promisftl  to  be  their  God,  only  on  condition 
that  their  hearts  were  right  with  him.  Without  right 
hearts,  they  were  not  steadfast  in  his  covenant ; they  did 
not  comply  with  its  conditions,  and  therefore  could  have 
no  right  to  its  promises.  So  far  were  the  wicked  from 
being  acknowledged  as  God’s  covenant  people,  that  he 
absolutely  forbade  them  to  profess  any  such  relation  to 
him.  “ Gather  my  saints  together,  those  that  have  made 
a covenant  with  me  by  sacrifice.”  “ But  unto  the  wicked, 
God  saith,  what  hast  thou  to  do  to  declare  my  statutes, 
and  that  thou  shouldest  take  my  covenant  into  thy  mouth  ; 
.seeing  thou  hatest  instruction  and  castest  my  words  behind 
thee.”(p) 

m Isa.  x.  6.  n Isa.  ix.  17.  o Ps.  Ixxviii.  34 — 37. 

p Ps.  I.  5,  16,  &cxxv.  4,  5.  Rom.  ix.  6 — 8.  Rev.  ii.  9.  John 
i.  47,  compared  with  John,  viii.  31. 


10  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Con.— The  fact,  however,  is  plain,  that  God  actually 
bestowed  many  blessings  on  this  people,  though  their 
hearts  were  not  right  with  him. 

Min. — God  now  bestows  many  blessings  on  sinners  ; 
but  that  does  not  prove  that  they  have  a covenant  right  to 
these  blessings.  Temporal  blessings  were  bestowed  on 
this  people  out  of  respect  to  the  pious  among  them,  as  is 
very  manifest  from  the  following  passages,  whicii  you  may 
examine  at  your  leisure — Ezek.  xiv,  12 — 22,  and  xxii, 
29 — 31.  Ex.  xxxii,  10 — 14,  and  xxxiv,  8,9.  Num.  xiv, 
1 1 — 20.  Ps.  xxvi,  23,  and  cvi,  29,  30. 

Con . — Moses  was  pious  ; but Jhe  was  not  permitted  to 
enter  the  land  nf  Canaan. 

Min. — This  was  owing  to  an  offence  which  he  com- 
mitted. Though  piety  was  necessary  to  entitle  the  Jews 
to  this  land  by  covenant ; yet  particular  offences  might  ex- 
clude from  it  even  those  that  were  pious. 

Con.— The  conclusion  from  all  these  remarks  must  be, 
that  holiness  of  heart  and  life  was  as  necessary  to  a stand- 
ing in  the  covenant  and  church  of  God,  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  as  the  same  qualification  now  is,  to  a stand- 
ing in  the  covenant  and  church  of  God,  under  the  Christian 
dispensation  ; and  that  without  the  spirit  of  piety,  no  ex- 
ternal performances  would  be  of  any  avail. 

Min. — That  is  precisely  my  view  of  the  subject ; and 
it  is  very  clearly  expressed  by  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  u He  is  not  a Jew  which  is  one  outwardly  ; 
neither  is  that  circumcision,  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  : 
But  he  is  a Jew  which  is  one  inwardly  ; and  circumcision 
is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter  ; 
whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God.”(g)  By  a Jew  is 
here  meant,  one  of  God’s  professing  covenant  people  ; or 
a professor  of  religion  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  But 
he  was  not  one  in  reality,  or  in  the  sight  of  God,  who  was 
so  u outwardly  who  had  nothing  but  a profession  and 
external  forms  of  obedience  : But  he  was  a Jew  who  was 
one  inwardly  ; whose  heart  was  right  with  God.  He  was 
what  he  professed  to  be,  one  of  God’s  covenant  people  ; 
because  he,  and  he  only,  had  complied  with  the  terms  of 
the  covenant.  The  word  Christian  now  denotes  a profes- 
sor of  religion,  one  of  God’s  covenant  people  ; the  same 

g.  Rom.  ii,  28,  29. 


11 


Conversations  on  Baptism, 

precisely  that  the  word  Jew  denoted  formerly.  Baptism  is 
now  the  token  of  God’s  covenant,  as  circumcision  was  un- 
der the  Jewish  dispensation ; both  denoting  purity  of  heart. 
Substitute  Christian  for  Jew,  and  baptism  for  circumcision, 
and  this  passage  will  exactly  apply  to  members  of  the 
church  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  “ He  is  not  a 
Christian  who  is  one  outwardly  ; neither  is  that  baptism, 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  : But  he  is  a Christian  who 
is  one  inwardly ; and  baptism  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the 
spirit,  and  not  in  the*  letter  ; whose  praise  is  not  of  men, 
but  of  God.”  How  plain  is  it  that  church  members  pro- 
fessed the  same  thing  both  under  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
dispensations ! Of  course,  that  the  church,  which  consists 
of  its  members,  must  be  established  upon  the  same  found- 
ation or  covenant ; or  in  other  words,  it  must  be  essentially 
the  same  church. 

Con. — This,  I admit,  appears  consistent  and  reasonable. 
But  is  it  certain  that  the  church  is  now  established  upon 
the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  because  holiness  of 
heart  was  required  in  that  covenant  ? 

Min . — Holiness  of  heart  must  be  always  the  same  ; and 
as  this  is  now  required  as  a qualification  for  church  mem- 
bership, or  a condition  of  the  covenant  upon  which  the 
church  is  now  organised  ; these  qualifications  or  condi- 
tions are  the  same  now,  as  formerly.  And  holiness  of 
heart  must  always  be  connected  with  the  enjoyment  of 
spiritual  blessings.  If  we  love  God,  we  shall  enjoy  him, 
of  course,  as  our  God  or  portion.  Spiritual  blessings 
must,  therefore,  be  contained  in  the  promises  made  to  the 
church  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  But  if  holiness  of 
heart  were  required,  and  spiritual  blessings  promised,  un- 
der both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  the  re- 
quirements and  the  promises,  under  both  dispensations, 
must  be  essentially  the  same.  And  as  the  covenant  con- 
sists of  requirements  and  premises,  the  covenant  must  of 
course,  be  essentially  the  same  ; and  consequently  the 
church  which  is  organised  on  this  covenant. 

Con. — We  are  brought  then,  of  necessity,  it  appears, 
to  this  alternative ; either  to  admit  the  sameness  of  the 
covenant,  and  consequently  of  the  church  under  both  dis- 
pensations ; or  else  to  deny  that  holiness  of  heart  was 
ever  required  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

Min . — This  alternative  is  unavoidable.  Eithpr'  the  cov- 


12  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

enant  with  Abraham  was  merely  external,  requiring  only 
the  observance  of  external  rites ; or  it  extended  to  the 
heart,  requiring  right  affections.  There  is  no  possible 
medium.  If  it  extended  to  the  heart,  requiring  right  af- 
fections, it  must  have  been  connected  with  spiritual  prom- 
ises ; it  was  a spiritual  or  holy  covenant,  both  as  to  its  re- 
quirements and  promises ; the  same  with  that  on  which 
the  church  is  now  established.  All  who  do  not  admit 
this  conclusion,  are  driven  to  the  necessity  of  adopting  the 
sentiment,  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  merely  ex- 
ternal ; requiring  only  the  performance  of  external  rites, 
and  promising,  of  course,  only  temporal  blessings.  This 
always  must  be  the  essential  difference  between  those  who 
maintain,  and  those  who  reject,  the  perpetuity  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  and  consequently  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism. 

Con.— I cannot  believe  that  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham and  the  people  of  Israel,  in  which  God  promised  them 
so  many  blessings,  was  a mere  display  of  forms  and  cer- 
emonies^ without  any  reference  to  the  spirit  of  true  reli- 
gion. 

Min. — Then  you  must  believe  that  it  was  a spiritual,  ho- 
ly covenant,  both  in  its  requirements  and  promises  ; the 
same,  essentially,  with  that  on  which  the  church  is  now 
organised.  The  difference  can  he  in  nothing  else  than  ex- 
ternal ordinances.  The  covenant,  or  body,  must  be  es- 
sentially the  same ; the  ordinances,  or  dress  alone,  can 
have  been  changed. 

Thus  I have  given  you  a general  view  of  my  sentiments 
respecting  the  church  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  ; en- 
deavoring to  illustrate  and  establish  the  doctrine,  that 
none  hut  true  believers  were  in  covenant  with  God , or 
could  have  any  right  to  covenant  blessings.  I should  be 
pleased  to  continue  this  conversation  ; but  I have  an  en- 
gagement at  this  hour,  which  demands  my  attention.  If 
you  will  call  to-morrow,  about  this  time,  I will  attend  fur- 
ther, by  the  will  of  Providence,  to  your  interesting  enqui- 
ries. 


CONVERSATION  II. 

Containing  a particular  description  of  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant, with  evidence  of  its  continuance  under  the  Christ- 
ian dispensation . 

Convert . — I have  called  on  you  again,  Sir,  according 
to  your  proposal. 

Minister . — I am  happy  to  see  you,  and  to  find  myself 
at  leisure  to  attend  to  your  enquiries. 

Con . — I would  enquire,  Sir,  more  particularly  respect- 
ing the  nature  and  form  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham. 

Min . — It  is  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Genesis. 
It  consists,  as  we  formerly  observed,  of  requirements  and 
promises.  The  sum  of  all  its  requirements  is  expressed  in 
these  words  : u Walk  before,  me  and  be  thou  perfect.”  v.  1 . 
And  the  sum  of  all  its  promised  blessings  is  expressed  in 
the  7th  v . — “ I will  establish  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations  ; to 
be  a God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.” 

Con . — What  are  we  to  understand  by  these  words? — 
w Walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  perfect.” 

Min . — To  walk  before  God,  or  with  God,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  scripture,  denotes  the  spirit  and  life  of  true  re- 
ligion. “ Enoch  walked  with  God.” (r)  “Noah  walked 
with  God.  ”(^)  The  same  is  meant  by  the  word  perfect. 
It  does  not  always  mean  sinless  perfection  ; but  only  a life 
of  piety.  u Noah  was  a just  man,  and  perfect  in  his  gene- 
rations.”^) u Job  was  a perfect  and  upright  man.”(w) 
Abraham  was  required  to  possess  this  character,  as  a con- 
dition of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  him.  The 
same  would,  of  course,  be  required  of  all  who  should  af- 
terwards profess  to  enter  into  this  covenant  y or  who  could 
have  any  right  to  its  promised  blessings. 

Con. — What  are  we  to  understand  as  included  in  the 
promise — 41 1 will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee  ; to  be  a God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.” 
Min. — The  meaning  must  be,  that  God  would  be  their 
spiritual  and  eternal  portion.  This  is  always  meant,  when 

r Ge n.  v.  24 . s Gen.  vi.  9.  t Gen.  vi,  9.  u Job,  i.  1, 

B 


14 


Conversations  oti  Baptism. 

God  promises  to  any  individuals  or  any  people,  to  be  their 
God . u He  that  overcometh  shall  inherit  all  things,  and 
I will  be  his  God,  and  he  shall  be  my  son.”(t?)  This  phrase 
is  never  used  in  any  other  sense,  in  the  scriptures.  That 
this  is  its  meaning  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  certain, 
from  our  Saviour’s  application  of  it  in  reasoning  with  the 
Sadducees  : — u As  touching  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
have  ye  never  read  that  which  was  spoken  unto  you  by 
God,  saying— X am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac^ 
and  the  God  of  Jacob  ? God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead, 
but  of  the  living* ”(w)  God  declared,  long  after  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob  had  been  dead,  that  he  was  their  God  ; 
repeating  the  promise  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  This 
expression,  our  Saviour  assures  us,  proves  that  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob  were  then  in  existence,  enjoying  in  the 
eternal  world  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise.  The  mean- 
ing of  this  phrase,  of  course,  must  be,  that  God  was  their 
spiritual  and  eternal  portion.  That  this  promise  had  refer- 
ence to  spiritual  blessings  in  the  future  world,  is  evident 
from  Beb.  xi.  16.  u Now  they  desire  a better  country,  that 
is  an  heavenly.  Wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  call ~ 
' ed  tiieib  God ; for  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a city.” 
The  inference  is,  he  would  have  been  ashamed  to  be  call- 
ed their  God,  in  the  sense  of  being  a temporal  ruler,  to 
conduct  them  only  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  give  them 
temporal  prosperity  in  that  lapd. 

Con.— The  relation  between  God  and  the  people  of  Is- 
rael is  often  expressed  in  such  terms  as* these  will  he 

your  God , and  ye  shall  he  my  people .”  What,  Sir,  is  that 
relation  which  is  expressed  in  these  words  ? 

Min.- — It  is  the  relation  which  was  formed  by  the  Abra- 
hamic covenant  ; as  it  accords  with  the  words  in  which 
that covenant  was  made.(^)  Hence,  in  speaking  of  his 
covenant  relation  to  this  people,  God  usually  adopts  such 
language  as  this:  Say  unto  the  children  of  Israel— I 

will  take  you  to  me  for  a people,  and  I will  be  to  you  a 
God  ; and  ye  shall  know  that  I am  the  Lord  your  God, 
that  bringeth  you  out  from  under  the  burdens  of  the  Egyp- 
tians.” (z)  UI  will  ....  establish  my  covenant  with  you. 
And  I will  walk  among  you,  and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye 

v Hey.  xxi.  7.  w Mat.  xxii.  31,  32. 

y Gen.  xyii,  7,  8.  z Exo,  vi,  09  7. 


15 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

shall  be  my  people,”^)  “ Ye  stand  this  day,  all  of  you, 
before  the  Lord  your  God  ; — that  thou  shouldst  enter  into 
covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God  ; — that  he  may  establish 
thee  to-day  for  a people  unto  himself;  and  that  he  might 
be  unto  thee  a God  ; as  he  hath  said  unto  thee,  and  as  he 
hath  sworn  unto  thy  fathers,  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to 
Jacob. ”(&) 

Con. — Does  this  prove  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
was  a spiritual  covenant ; that  holiness  of  heart  was  re- 
quired and  professed  by  all  who  entered  into  it  ? 

Min. — Holiness  of  heart  was  the  great  qualification  al- 
ways required  of  those  who  professed  to  enter  into  this 
covenant  with  God.  It  was  necessary  to  constitute  this 
covenant  relation,  in  which  God  would  acknowledge  them 
as  his  people,  and  would  profess  himself  to  be  their  God. 
Without  true  holiness  of  heart  and  life,  they  had  no  right 
to  claim  this  relation  to  God  ; nor  did  God  even  promise 
them  any  covenant  blessings. 

Con. — Will  you  cite  a few  passages  to  establish  this 
point? 

Min. — God  says  by  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah,  “This  thing 
I commanded  them,  saying,  obey  my  voice,  and  I wrill  be 
your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people.”(c)  That  holiness 
of  heart  was  implied  in  this  obedience,  is  plain  from  the 
following  passages  : — “ I will  give  them  an  heart  to  know 
me,  that  I am  the  Lord  ; and  they  Shall  be  my  people,  and 
I will  be  their  God  ; for  they  shall  return  unto  me  with 
their  whole  heart. (d)  Again: — “I  will  give  them  one 
heart,  and  I will  put  a new  spirit  within  you  ; and  I will 
take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh,  and  will  give 
them  an  heart  of  flesh,  that  they  may  walk  in  my  statutes , 
and  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them ; and  they  shall  be 
my  people,  and  I wTill  be  their  God.”(c)  The  following 
passages  are  of  the  same  import : — Jer.  xxxii,  38—40. 
Ezek.  xxxvi,  26 — 28,  37 ; xxiii,27,  with  12,  13,  14.  Jer. 
xi,  3,  4.  Zech.  viii,  7,  8,  &xiii.  8,  9.  Lev.  xi,  45.  Num. 
xv,  40,  41.  Heb,  xi,  16.  1st  Chron.  xvii,  21 — 24.  Under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  the  covenant  relation  between 
God  and  his  people  is  expressed  in  the  same  words  : “What 

a Lev.  xxvi,  9,  12.  [xxxiv.  30,  31. 

h Deut.  xxix,  10,  12,  13.  1st  Chron.  xvii,  22 — 24.  Ezek. 

c Jer,  vii,  23.  d Jer.  xxiv.  7.  e Ezek.  xi,  19,  20. 


316  Conversations  on  Baptism . 

agreement  hath  the  temple  of  God  with  idols  ; for  ye  are 
the  temple  of  the  living  God,  as  God  hath  said — I will 
dwell  in  them,  and  walk  in  them  ; and  I will  be  their  God , 
and  they  shall  be  my  people  .”  (f) 

Con. — I had  never  thought  particularly  of  this  argu- 
ment ; but  it  seems  very  clear,  and  very  satisfactory.  This 
covenant  relation,  it  would  seem,  must  be  the  same  under 
both  dispensations,  seeing  it  is  expressed  in  the  very  same 
words. 

Min . — In  Deut.  xxvi,  18,  the  form  of  covenanting  with 
God  is  in  nearly  the  same  words  that  have  been  used  bv 
many  Christian  churches,  in  the  covenant  they  have  adopt- 
ed, viz : u Thou  hast  avouched  the  Lord  this  day  to  be  thy 
God,  to  walk  in  all  his  statutes  and  ordinances,  and  to 
hearken  unto  his  voice ; and  the  Lord  hath  avouched  thee 
to  be  his  peculiar  people,  as  he  hath  said  unto  thee.” 

Con. — In  Genesis,  xvii,  8,  we  find  this  promise  : — u I 
will  give  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  all  the  land, 
of  Canaan , for  an  everlasting  possession.”  If  we  have  an 
interest  in  the  promises  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  why 
have  we  not  a right  to  this  land  ? 

Min.- The  following  facts  may  lead  to  the  answer.  “ Abra- 
ham himself  had  never  a foot  of  this  land ; and  the  same  was 
the  case  with  many  of  his  pious  descendants. ”(g)  It  was  a- 
bout  five  hundred  years  after  this  covenant  was  made, before 
his  posterity  entered  the  land  of  promise.  Hence  we  con- 
clude that  the  possession  of  Canaan  was  a circumstantial, 
rather  than  an  essential  part  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham. 
If  Abraham  and  his  posterity  could  live  five  hundred  years, 
enjoying  the  blessings  of  their  covenant  with  God,  without 
possessing  the  land  of  Canaan,  doubtless  believers,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  can  enjoy  the  same  blessings 
without  it. 

Con.— But  circumcision,  it  has  been  often  said,  gave  a 
right  to  the  land  of  promise. 

Min. — The  following  facts  must  be  sufficient  to  show 
that  this  sentiment  cannot  be  supported.  One  is,  that  the 
body  of  the  Israelites,  who  went  out  of  Egypt,  and  who 
had  all  been  circumcised,  were  destroyed  in  the  wilder- 
ness ; while  those  who  w^ere  brought  into  the  land  of  Ca- 

f 2d  Cor.  vi,  16.  Lev.  xxvi,  11, 12.  Rev.  xxi,  2,  3.  Jen 
»xi,  31—33*  with  Heb.  viii,  8—10.  g Acts  vi i,  5* 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 17 

&aan  had  not  been  circumcised  till  after  they  had  taken 
possession  of  this  land.  ( h ) Circumcision,  in  this  instance, 
did  not  give  them  a covenant  right  to  it.  God  did  not  de- 
stroy in  the  wilderness  those  who  had  a covenant  right  to 
the  land  of  Canaan,  and  then  give  this  land  to  others,  who 
had  no  such  right.  Again ; this  people  were  afterwards 
carried  into  captivity ; they  were  captives  seventy  years  in 
the  land  of  Babylon.  Ten  tribes  were  driven  out  and  dis- 
persed among  the  Gentiles.  The  Jews,  as  a nation,  were 
excluded  from  Canaan,  soon  after  the  days  of  our  Saviour. 
But,  in  each  of  these  cases,  they  had  all  been  circumcised  ; 
and  if  the  sentiment  you  have  stated  be  true,  they  had  all  a 
covenant  right  to  this  land,  at  the  very  time  when  they 
were  excluded  from  it.  The  mere  rite  of  circumcision, 
then,  did  not  give  them  a covenant  right  to  the  promised 
land  ; for  the  covenant  was  not  broken,  on  God’s  part,  in 
these  cases. 

Cow.—- What  then  was  the  condition  of  their  title  to  this 
land? 

Min . — It  was  nothing  short  of  the  faith  and  obedience 
of  a sanctified  heart.  Those  who  fell  in  the  wilderness 
were  destroyed  for  their  unbelief,  (i)  Caleb  and  Joshua 
were  the  only  persons  that  entered  the  promised  land,  who 
had  arrived  to  adult  age  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt ; 
and  the  reason  is  assigned  in  the  following  words  : u Sure- 
ly none  of  the  men  that  came  out  of  Egypt,  from  twenty 
years  old  and  upwards,  shall  see  the  land  which  I sware 
unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  ; because  they 
ham  not  wholly  followed  the  Lord ; save  Caleb  the  son  of 
Jephunneh  the  Kenezite,  and  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun  ; for 
they  have  wholly  followed  the  Lord”{k)  That  a right  spi- 
rit is  implied  in  thus  following  the  Lord,  as  well  as  right 
external  conduct,  is  evident  from  what  is  said  of  Caleb  : — * 
u My  servant  Caleb,  because  lie  had  another  spirit  with 
Mm,  and  hath  followed  me  fully  ; him  will  I bring  unto  the 
land  whereinto  lie  went,  and  his  seed  shall  possess  it.”(Z) 
That  an  unusual  proportion  of  the  whole  nation  were 
pious,  at  the  time  they  entered  the  land  of  Canaan,  is  evL 

h Josh,  y,  2 — -7,  with  iv,  Iff. 

i Heb.  iii,  17-19,  compared  with  Num.  xiV,  10,  11,  22-24* 

% Nutn,  xxxii,  11, 12.  I Num.  xiv,  24. 

B2 


18 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

dent  from  the  following  passages  : Jer.  ii,  2,  3,  21.  Num, 
xxiii,  21 — 23.  Hoseaix.  10.* 


* That  the  Jews  could  have  bo  covenant  right  to  the  land  of 
Canaan,  or  any  temporal  blessings,  without  the  spirit  and  life 
of  holiness  ; that  they  were  never  encouraged  to  expect  such 
blessings  on  any  other  condition,  must  be  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing considerations: — 1st.  Obedience  to  all  God’s  com- 
mands was  required,  to  entitle  them  to  any  promised  blessings  ; 
and  these  had  an  especial  reference  to  the  commands  of  the  mo- 
ral law ; which  could  not  be  obeyed  without  holiness  of 
heart. (a)  2d.  Holiness  of  heart  was  expressly  required  as  the 
condition  of  their  right  to  temporal  blessings.  “ If  ye  shall  dili- 
gently hearken  unto  my  commandments,  which  I command 
you  this  day,  to  love  the  Lord  your  God , and  to  serve  him  with 
all  your  hearty  and  with  all  your  soul ; ....  that  I will  give  the 
rain  of  your  land  in  due  season;  . . . that  thou  mayest  gather  in 
thy  corn,  thy  wine  and  thine  oil.  And  I will  send  grass  in  thy 
field  for  thy  cattle,  that  thou  mayest  eat  and  be  full.”(6)  3d. 
Temporal  judgments  were  denounced  against  this  people,  for 
unholiness  or  wickedness  of  heart.(c)  4th.  Many  were  des- 
troyed, and  others  banished  from  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  unbe- 
lief and  for  rejecting  the  Saviour.  “ They  could  not  enter  in 
because  of  unbelief  ”(d)  “ Because  of  unbelief  they  were  bro- 

ken off.n(e)  “ Every  soul  that  shall  not  hear  that  prophet, n 
(i.  e.  Christ),  “ shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the  people. ”(g) 
5th.  Evangelical  repentance,  arising  from  a renewed  heart, 
was  required  as  the  condition  of  removing  temporal  judgments 
and  restoring  temporal  blessings.  u If  they  shall  confess  their 
iniquity,  and  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers that  they  have 
walked  contrary  unto  me ; — if  their  uncircumcised  hearts  be 
humbled,  and  they,  then,  accept  the  punishment  of  their  ini- 
quity ; then  will  I remember  my  covenant  with  Jacob,  and  with 
Isaac,  and  with  Abraham ; and  I will  remember  the  land,’’(/i) 
6th.  Forgiveness  of  sins  was  premised  in  connection  with  tem- 
poral blessings,  and  on  the  same  conditions.  “ If  I shut  up 
heaven  that  there  be  no  rain  ; — or  if  I command  the  locusts  to 
devour  the  land ; or  if  I send  pestilence  among  my  people  ; — ° 
if  my  people,  which  are  called  by  my  name,  shall  humble  them- 
selves, and  pray,  and  seek  my  face,  and  turn  from  their  wicked 

a Deut.  xxviii,  1 — 14.  xi,  13 — 23,  & xxx.  6 — 20. 
b Deut.  xi,  13, 14, 15.  xxx,  6,  20.  Ps.  xxxvii,  3, 11,  29,  34. 
c Lev.  xxvi,  14 — 18.  Deut.  xxviii,  14,  58,  59.  Josh,  xxiii, 
It — 13.  Jer.  ix,  25,  26.  Zech.  vii,  11—14. 
d Heb.  iii,  19.  t Rom.  xi,  20*  Ps.  cvi,  24 — 27.  g Acts  iii,23. 
h Lev.  xxvi,  40 — 42.  Deut.  xxx,  2 — 10,  & iv.  29.  Jer.  iii? 
10,  k xxix,  13,  14,  Joel  ii,  12—14,  Zech.  vii,  4?  6. 


19 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Con.*— Was  not  the  Jewish  church,  with  all  its  rites 
and  ceremonies,  only  a type  of  the  Christian  church  ; as 
we  read  in  Hebrews,  that  “ the  law”  had  “ a shadow  of 
good  things  to  come  V\m ) 

Min . — The  ritual  law  was  a shadow  or  type,  in  many 
respects,  of  Christ,  and  of  the  distinguished  blessings  we 
are  to  enjoy  through  him.  But  the  church  itself  we  can- 
not consider  as  a mere  type  or  shadow.  They  were  sure- 
ly moral,  accountable  creatures ; under  the  same  obliga- 
tion to  be  holy  as  we  are  ; and  they  professed  to  be  the 
true  children  of  God.  The  numerous  rites  of  the  Mosaic 
law  were  designed  not  only  as  types  of  Christ,  and  of 
blessings  to  be  enjoyed  under  the  Christian  dispensation ; 
but  they  were  designed,  especially,  to  exhibit  to  the  Jews , ' 
and  to  impress  deeply  upon  their  minds , the  true  spirit  of 
that  worship  which  God  required  of  them ; and  they  are 
wisely  calculated  to  answer  this  end.  “ The  whole  ritu- 
al” (says  Lowman)  “ plainly  taught  that  a pure  heart,  as 
well  as  clean  hands,  were  requisite  in  the  worship  of  God. 
The  ritual  actions  were  manifestly  designed  to  have  a mo- 
ral and  spiritual  meaning.  All  their  washings  taught  the 
necessity  of  internal  purity  ; their  sin  and  trespass  offerings 
showed  the  necessity  of  gospel  repentance  ; their  sacrifi- 
ces pointed  to  the  only  way  of  forgiveness  by  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ.  That  this  was  the  design  of  these  rites  we  are 
taught  by  the  law  itself,  and  also  by  the  prophets,  the  best 
interpreters  and  authorised  expositors  of  the  ritual  law.” 
This  was,  probably,  in  that  age  of  the  world,  the  most  suc- 
cessful and  impressive  manner  of  communicating  this  spi- 
riftial  instruction.  Thus  we  may  see  the  wisdom  of  many 
of  those  rites,  which  otherwise  appear  without  any  impor- 
tant meaning. 

m Heb.  x,  1. 


ways ; then  will  I hear  from  heaven,  and  yr\W  forgive  their  sin , 
and  heal  their  land.y\i)  7th.  Forgiveness  of  sics  was  includ- 
ed among  the  blessings  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.(&)  How 
cer  tain  it  must  be,  from  all  these  considerations,  that  the  Jews 
bad  no  promise  of  any  temporal  blessings,  and  no  right  to  ex- 
pect them,  without  the  spirit  and  life  of  holiness? 

i 2d  Chron.  vii,  13,  14.  1st  Kings,  viii,  33 — 53* 
k Micah  vii,  13, 19,  20. 


m 


Conversations  on  Baptism* 

Con*— There  appears  to  be  a consistency  in  this  view 
of  the  subject : But  if  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was 
what  you  have  described  it,  the  same  with  that  bn  which 
the  church  is  now  established,  we  might  expect  to  find  ev- 
idence of  this  in  the  New  Testament.  Is  there  any  thing 
to  this  effect  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  ? 

Min. — St.  Paul  has  stated  and  illustrated  fully  the  spi- 
rituality and  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  The 
4th  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  almost  exclu- 
sively upon  this  subject.  Abraham  is  here  repeatedly 
called  the  father  of  believers , of  Gentile  believers  in  this 
Christian  church ; and  they  are  called  his  seed  and  his 
children ; and  are  represented  as  enjoying  distinguishing 
blessings,  by  virtue  of  this  relation  which  they  bear  to  him. 
Such  expressions  frequently  occur  in  the  New  Testament. 
And  what  are  we  to  understand  as  being  their  true  mean- 
ing? 

Con. — My  mind  has  always  been  dark  on  that  subject. 
I have  generally  supposed  that  as  Abraham  was  an  emi- 
nent believer,  he  is  called  the  father  of  believers*  and  they 
are  called  his  seed  and  his  children  on  that  account. 

Min. — Noah,  Moses,  David,  Daniel,  and  many  others, 
were  eminent  believers  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion ; perhaps  as  much  so  as  Abraham  was.  Why  are 
not  they  sometimes  called  the  fathers  of  believers  under 
the  Christian  dispensation  ; and  such  believers  called  their 
seed  and  their  children  ? Why  is  no  such  language  used 
in  any  case,  except  in  relation  to  Abraham  ? 

Con. — It  may  be  because  he  was  an  eminent  type  of 
Christ,  and  also  his  progenitor.. 

Min.— Moses,  Aaron,  and  especially  David,  were  much 
more  distinguished  types  of  Christ  than  Abraham  was ; 
and  David*  with  a train  of  other  believers,  were  also  his 
progenitors  ; yet  believers  are  never  spoken  of  as  being 
their  seed,  or  as  receiving  any  blessings  in  connection  with 
them.  It  must  be  clear  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  that 
Gentile  believers  in  the  Christian  church  sustain  a different 
relation  to  Abraham  from  what  they  sustain  to  any  other 
believer  that  has  ever  lived  in  any  age  of  the  world;  and 
ihe  important  question  is,  what  is  this  relation  ? 

Con . — *1  confess  I cannot  very  easily  imagine.  If  it  is 
not  because  he  was  an  eminent  believer,  not  because  he 
was  a type  and  progenitor  of  Christy  I cannot  discover 


Conversations  on  Baptism.  21 

what  this  relation  is,  unless  it  be  in  some  sense  connected 
with  the  covenant. 

Min. — St.  Paul  has  made  this  point  very  clear  in  the 
chapter  above  referred  to.  “ Abraham  received  the  sign 
of  circumcision , a seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised ; that  he  mjght 
be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe , though  they  be 
not  circumcised.  ”(w)  An  important  reason  is  here  assign- 
ed why  Abraham  received  circumcision  ; it  was  to  consti- 
tute him  the  father  of  all  believers. 

Con . — But  how  could  circumcision  constitute  Abra- 
ham the  father  of  all  believers,  even  though  they  be  not 
circumcised .? 

Min. — Circumcision  was  the  token  of  the  covenant  re- 
corded in  Genesis  xvii,  11,  and  doubtless  is  here  taken  for 
the  covenant  itself ; as  we  often  use  the  name  of  the  sign 
for  the  thing  which  it  signifies.  Abraham  was  constitu- 
ted the  father  of  believers  in  this  covenant  transaction ; 
i.  e.  he  was  their  public  representative  in  this  cove- 
nant. Though  the  covenant  of  grace , here  made  with 
Abraham,  had  been  always  in  existence  before  his  time, 
and  all  true  believers  had  enjoyed  its  peculiar  blessings  ; 
yet  it  had  never  before  this,  been  made  the  foundation  of 
a visible  church , regularly  organised,  with  a visible  sign 
or  seal  and  ordinances.  Abraham  was  thus  constituted 
the  public  representative  of  the  visible  church , in  all  suc- 
ceeding ages  of  the  world.  All  believers  in  succeeding 
generations,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  living  un- 
der the  Jewish  or  Christian  dispensations,  are  included  in 
the  covenant  that  was  established  with  him,  and  therefore 
are  entitled  to  the  same  covenant  blessings.  In  this  sense, 
he  is  called  their  father,  and  they  are  called  his  seed  and 
his  children.  Thus  he  is  “ the  father  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve, though  they  be  not  circumcised  ; that  righteousness 
might  be  imputed  unto  them  also.”  That  this  is  the  Apos- 
tle’s meaning,  is  plain  from  the  fact,  that  he  quotes  direct- 
ly the  words  of  that  covenant  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing this  very  point.  “ Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us 
all”  (i.  e.  all  the  members  of  the  church  at  Rome,  to 
whom  he  directs  this  epistle,  consisting  of  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles); “as  it  is  written,”  (Gen.  xvii,  5)~“  I have  made 

» Rom,  iv,  I K 


2?  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

thee  a father  of  many  nations .”  (o)  God  here  declared  to 
Abraham  that  in  the  covenant  recorded  in  the  17th  of  Ge- 
nesis, he  had  u made  him  a father  of  many  nations.55 — 
His  name  was  changed  from  Abram  to  Abraham  on  this 
account,  (jr)  Paul  quotes  this  very  passage,  and  applies 
it  to  all  believers  in  this  church  at  Rome,  though  belong- 
ing to  different  nations ; and  assures  them  that  Abraham 
was  their  father,  because  God  had  made  him,  in  this  cov- 
enant transaction,  a father  of  many  nations. 

Con . — I have  always  supposed  that  this  promise  to 
Abraham,  that  he  should  be  a father  of  many  nations, 
meant  nothing  more  than  that  many  nations  should  pro- 
ceed from  him,  as  his  natural  posterity ; as  the  Jews,  the 
Edomites,  the  Ishmaelites,  and  others. 

Min. — Did  Paul  understand  this  passage  thus  ? Did 
he  assure  the  Gentile  converts  in  this  church  at  Rome, 
that  Abraham  was  their  father,  because  many  nations 
should  descend  from  him,  as  his  natural  posterity  ; when 
it  was  a plain  historical  fact  that  they  were  not  his  na- 
tural descendants?  Besides,  none  could  be  entitled  to  such 
blessings  as  the  Apostle  here  speaks  of,  as  belonging  to 
those  who  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  merely  because  they 
are  his  natural  descendants.  Paul,  then,  did  not  under- 
stand by  this  passage  in  Genesis,  that  Abraham  should 
merely  be  the  natural  progenitor  of  many  nations,  as  his 
posterity.  He  could  have  had  no  such  view  of  this  pas- 
sage, when  he  applied  it  to  the  case  of  believing  Gentiles, 
in  this  Christian  church.  He  had  manifestly  the  same  view 
of  it  which  has  just  been  given,  viz.  that  Abraham,  in  the 
covenant  of  which  circumcision  was  the  token,  was  the 
father  or  representative  of  all  believers , in  all  succeeding 
generations , to  whatever  nation  they  might  belong  ; and 
they,  being  included  in  the  covenant  that  was  made  with 
him,  are  regarded  as  his  seed  and  his  children ; and  with 
him  are  entitled  to  the  same  covenant  blessings.  With  this 
view  of  the  subject  before  us,  all  that  is  said  by  the  Apos- 
tle in  this  chapter  is  peculiarly  pertinent  and  forcible  ; and 
it  proves  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt  the  spirituality  and 
perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

Con . — Are  there  any  other  passages  which  are  of  the 
•same  import  ? 

q Rom.  ir,  16, 17, 


p Geo.  xvii , 5, 


23 


Conversations  on  Baptism* 

Min, — In  the  3d  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
St.  Paul  dwells  at  length  upon  this  subject.  To  show  the 
members  of  this  church  what  blessings  they  enjoyed,  he 
points  them  to  the  covenant  which  was  made  with  Abra- 
ham. “ They  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the  child- 
ren of  Abraham.”  “ They  which  be  of  faith,  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham.”  “ That  the  blessing  of  Abra- 
ham may  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ ; that 
they  may  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit,  through  faith.” 
^ If  ye  be  Christ’s,  then  are  ye  Abraham’s  seed,  ind  heirs 
according  to  the  promise.” (q)  These  passages  are  of  the 
same  import  with  those  we  have  been  considering ; and 
the  argument  which  they  afford  of  the  spirituality  and  per- 
petuity of  the  Abrahamic  Covenant  rests,  substantially,  up- 
on the  same  foundation. 

Con . — There  is  one  objection,  Sir,  to  the  doctrine  you 
have  advanced,  which  I wish  you  particularly  to  answer. 
In  Jer.  xxxi,  and  onward,  we  read — u Behold  the  days 
come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  X will  make  a new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah  ; not  ac- 
cording to  the  covenant  which  I made  with  their  fathers, 
when  I took  them  by  the  band  to  bring  them  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt.  This  shall  be  the  covenant  that  I will 
make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord;  I will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  will 
write  it  in  their  hearts ; and  I will  be  to  them  a God,  and 
they  shall  be  to  me  a people.”  If  this  be  the  covenant 
that  was  made  with  Abraham,  why  is  it  here  called  a new 
covenant? 

Min . — -It  cannot  be  new  in  this  sense,  that  it  had  never 
before  been  made  known  to  mankind.  It  is  the  same  that 
had  been  made  with  all  true  believers  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world  ; for  there  could  be  no  salvation  in  any  other 
way.  That  it  is  not  essentially  different  from  the  Abraha- 
mic covenant  appears  from  the  fact,  that  the  very  words  in 
which  it  is  here  expressed,  are  the  words  generally  used  in 
the  scriptures,  to  distinguish  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
viz  : “ I will  be  to  them  a God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a 
people,”  And  that  holy  and  sanctified  hearts  were  neces- 
sary to  bring  the  people  of  Israel  into  this  relation  to  God, 
has,  I apprehend,  been  fully  established.  Why  then,  3rou 

q Gal.  iii,  7,  9,  14,  29» 


24 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

ask,  is  this  called  a new  covenant?  It  is  new,  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  covenant  at  Mount-Sinai.  This  is  what  the 
prophet  especially  refers  to.  “ Not  according  to  the  cov- 
enant which  I made  with  your  fathers,  when  I took  them 
by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt .”  This 
covenant,  which  was  made  at  Mount-Sinai,  was  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  after  the  covenant  with  Abraham  ;(r) 
and  embodied  all  the  rites  of  the  ceremonial  law.  These 
rites  were  all  abolished  at  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, {s)  and 
a new  dispensation  established,  materially  different  in  its 
external  form  from  that  of  the  Sinai  covenant.  It  was 
now  extended  to  believers  of  all  nations  ; and  contained  a 
much  more  ample  and  luminous  exhibition  of  gospel  truths 
than  had  ever  before  been  made.  On  these  accounts  it 
may,  with  propriety,  be  called  a new  covenant.  John, 
when  speaking  of  the  law  of  love,  calls  it  a new  command- 
ment ; and  in  the  verse  preceding  he  calls  it  the  old  com- 
mandment, which  they  had  from  the  beginning.^)  If  you 
ask,  how  then  it  can  be  a new  commandment,  I refer  you 
to  the  answer  which  he  himself  has  given  : ^ A new  com- 
mandment I write  unto  you,  which  thing  is  true  in  him 
and  in  you  ; because  the  darkness  is  past , and  the  true 
light  now  shineth.”  In  the  same  sense,  this  is  a new  cov- 
enant. The  darkness  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  consist- 
ing in  a multitude  of  types  and  ceremonies,  is  past ; and 
the  true  light  of  the  gospel  now  shineth  with  peculiar  re- 
fulgence and  glory.  We  speak  of  the  Old  and  also  of  the 
New  Testaments ; but  we  do  not  consider  that  these  are 
essentially  different  as  to  the  nature  of  the  instructions 
they  inculcate.  The  same  religion  is  taught ; the  same 
doctrines  and  duties,  essentially,  are  included  as  the  sub- 
stance of  both  Testaments.  The  former  was  under  a dark, 
and  the  latter  under  a clear  and  luminous  dispensation.  It 
is  thus  with  the  different  dispensations  of  the  covenant.  If 
this  covenant  had  always  been  known  and  entered  into  by 
believers,  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  all  that  could  be 
new  since  that  time,  must  consist  in  its  external  adminis- 
tration or  ordinances.  These,  which  are  baptism  and  the 
Lord’s  supper,  all  will  admit,  are  new  under  the  Christian 
dispensation.  In  this  sense,  all  must  agree  that  this  is  a 
new  covenant. 

r Gal.  iii,  17.  $ Col,  ii,  14.  t IstJohibii,  7,  8. 


25 


Conversations  on  Baptism * 

Con.— I thank  you,  Sir,  for  these  interesting  remarks. 
As  we  have  no  further  time  for  conversation  at  present,  I 
must  solicit  the  favor  of  another  opportunity,  whenever  it 
may  suit  your  convenience  to  attend. 

Min. — Call,  if  you  please,  at  an  early  hour  this  evening. 


CONVERSATION  III. 

Containing  evidence  from  the  New-Testament,  that  the 
Church  is  the  same  both  under  the  Jewish  and  Chris « 
turn  Dispensations . 

Convert . — I have  called  on  you  again,  Sir,  to  con- 
tinue my  enquiries  on  the  subject  of  our  previous  confer- 
ence. This  I find  a more  extensive  and  more  interesting 
subject  than  I imagined ; and  I have  many  questions  yet 
to  ask,  which  I consider  of  primary  importance.  And 
particularly  I would  now  enquire,  what  evidence  you  find 
in  the  New-Testament,  to  prove  that  the  Christian  church 
is  established  on  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  in  addition  to 
what  has  been  already  presented.  Evidence  from  the 
New-Testament  is  generally  the  most  clear  and  satisfacto- 
ry to  my  mind. 

Minister. — Before  I proceed  directly  to  answer  your 
question,  I would  call  your  attention  to  the  predictions  of 
the  prophets,  that  the  church  existing  in  their  days,  estab- 
lished, of  course,  on  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  should  be 
continued  after  the  coming  of  Christ  and  setting  up  of  the 
Christian  dispensation  ; that  it  should  be  greatly  enlarged, 
-reformed  and  beautified  by  the  accession  of  Gentile  con- 
verts, and  should  be  continued  to  the  end  of  the  world  ; as 
you  may  see  by  examining,  attentively,  the  following  pas- 
sages Isa.  xlix,  14—22,  and  liv,  1—4  ; compared  with 
Gal.  iv,  27  ; Hosea  i,  9,  and  ii,  23  ; compared  with  Bom. 
ix,  22 — 26  : Amos  ix,  1 1, 12  ; with  Acts  xv,  16, 17  : Isa. 
lx.  3 — 16  ; Ezek.  xxxvii,  15 — 28  ; and  Ps.  cv,  8,  with 
Mat.  i,  17.  The  writers  of  the  New-Testament,  in  order 
to  set  forth  the  privileges  of  believers,  and  the  blessings 
they  enjoy  in  the  Christian  church,  often  refer  them  to  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  representing  these  privileges  as  the 
same  which  believers  then  enjoved.  St.  Paul  illustrates 
C 


26 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

this  by  the  similitude  of  an  olive  tree.  u If  the  root  be 
holy  so  are  the  branches  ; and  if  some  of  the  branches  be 
broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a wild  olive  tree,  wert  graffed 
in  among  them,  and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and 
fatness  of  the  olive  ; boast  not  against  the  branches  ; but 
if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee. 
Thou  wilt  say  then  unto  me,  the  branches  were  broken 
off  that  I might  be  graffed  in.  Well,  because  of  unbelief, 
they  were  broken  off ; but  thou  standest  by  faith.  Be  not 
high-minded,  but  fear  ; for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural 
branches,  take  heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  Behold, 
therefore,  the  goodness  and  severity  of  God  ; on  them  that 
fell,  severity  ; but  toward  thee,  goodness,  if  thou  continue 
in  his  goodness ; otherwise,  thou,  also,  shall  be  cut  off. 
And  they,  also,  if  they  continue  not  in  unbelief,  shall  be 
graffed  in  ; for  God  is  able  to  graff  them  in  again.  For, 
if  thou  wert  cut  om  of  an  olive  tree,  which  is  wild  by  na- 
ture, and  wert  graffed,  contrary  to  nature,  into  a good  ol- 
ive tree  ; how  much  more  shall  these,  wdiich  be  the  natur- 
al branches,  be  graffed  into  their  own  olive  tree.” (a) 

Con^ — Will  you  please,  Sir,  to  show  the  application  of 
this  passage  to  the  point  which  is  now  under  considera- 
tion ? 

Min . — The  olive  tree  represents  the  visible  church,  as 
established  on  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham.  The 
Jews  were  its  natural  branches.  Gentile  converts,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  are  the  branches  cut  off  from 
the  wild  olive,  and  graffed  into  this  good  olive  tree.  How 
clearly  it  appears  from  this  representation,  that  the  church 
was  the  same  imder  both  dispensations ! The  old  olive  was 
not  cut  down,  and  another  tree  planted  of  a different  kind  ; 
but  the  very  same  tree  continued  standing.  Some  of  the 
natural  branches,  that  bear  no  fruit,  were  broken  off  from 
this  tree  ; i.e  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  cast  out  of  the 
church.  The  rexoaining  natural  branches,  or  those  that 
were  fruitful,  continued  still  as  they  were  ; i.e.  the  believ- 
ing Jews  retained  their  standing  as  members  of  the  visible 
church.  Branches  were  cat  off  from  the  wild  olive,  and 
graffed  into  this  good  olive  tree,  into  the  very  same  stocks 
from  which  the  unfruitful  branches, had  been  broken  off  ; 
pc*  converts  were  taken  from  the  Gentile  nations,  and 


« Rom.  xi,  16—24. 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 27 

brought  into  the  same  church  from  which  the  unbelieving 
Jews  had  been  excluded,  and  in  which  the  believing  Jews 
continued  to  stand,  enjoying  the  same  privileges  with  them ; 
u partaking  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive,”  And 
the  natural  branches  that  were  broken  off  will  be  reanima- 
ted and  grafted  again  into  their  own  olive  tree  ; i.e,  the 
unbelieving  Jews  will  be  converted  to  Christianity,  partic- 
ularly in  the  days  of  the  millennium,  and  will  then  be 
brought  into  the  same  church  from  which  they  had  been 
excluded.  How  clear,  then,  it  must  be,  that  the  church 
itself,  under  both  dispensations,  must  be  essentially  the 
same! 

Con. — This  argument,  indeed,  appears  conclusive,  pro- 
vided the  olive  tree  denotes  the  visible  church  ; but  it  has 
frequently  been  said  that  it  represents  Christ. 

Mm.— Christ  is  never  represented  by  the  figure  of  an 
olive  tree.  Such  a construction  of  the  passage  must  in- 
volve the  absurdity  that  some  true  believers  have  been  bro- 
ken off  from  Christ.  Besides,  we  can  see  no  propriety  in 
speaking  of  the  Jews  as  the  natural  branches  of  Christ; 
or  of  Christ  as  being  himself  their  own  olive  tree. 

Con . — But  what  evidence  is  there  that  the  olive  tree,  in 
this  passage,  means  the  visible  church  t 

Min. — The  visible  church  js  called  an  olive  tree  in  Jer. 

16  “The  Lord  hath  called  thy  name  a green  olive 
tree,  fair  and  of  goodly  fruit.  With  the  noise  of  a great 
tumult  he  hath  kindled  a fire  upon  it,  and  the  branches 
thereof  are  broken.”  St.  Paul  very  evidently  alludes  to 
this  passage  in  the  1 1th  chapter  to  the  Romans.  His  ob- 
ject is  to  show  to  the  Gentile  converts  at  Rome,  the  great- 
ness of  the  privileges  and  blessings  which  they  enjoyed  as 
Christians  ; and  for  this  purpose,  he  informs  them  that  they 
were  brought  into  a union  with  the  ancient  covenant  peo- 
ple of  God,  enjoying  with  them  the  same  privileges  and 
blessings.  To  illustrate  this  in  the  clearest  manner,  he 
takes  the  figure  of  the  olive  tree  from  this  passage  in  Jer- 
emiah, as  being  peculiarly  suited  to  his  purpose,  and  makes 
the  same  use  of  it  that  the  prophet  did,  as  to  the  breaking 
off  of  its  branches.  That  he  refers  particularly  to  this 
passage  in  Jeremiah,  is  very  evident  from  the  fhct,  that 
the  sin  of  Israel,  in  offering  incense  to  Baal,  is  particular- 
ly spoken  of  by  the  prophet  in  connection  with  the  fig- 
ure of  the  olive  tree  ; and  is  particularly  noticed  by  the 


28  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

apostle,  also,  as  standing  in  this  same  connection,  (fj 

Con . — Are  there  are  any  other  texts  that  illustrate  this 
doctrine  ? 

Min . — In  the  21st  chapter  of  Matthew,  our  Saviour 
speaks  of  the  visible  church  under  the  similitude  of  a vine- 
yard. By  this  figure  he  portrays  the  wickedness  of  the 
Jews,  for  a long  course  of  years,  by  the  great  abuse  of 
their  distinguished  privileges  ; and  concludes  by  saying — - 
u Therefore,  I say  unto  you,  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be 
taken  from  you,  and  be  given  to  a nation  bringing  forth 
the  fruits  of  it.”(c)  That  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the 
vineyard  mean  the  same  thing  in  this  passage,  and  that  they 
denote  the  visible  church  under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
must  be  very  manifest.  This  was  to  be  taken  from  tlie 
Jews  and  given  to  the  Gentiles.  While  it  continued  with 
the  Jews,  it  was  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  ; and  when 
given  to  the  Gentiles,  it  was  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. It  wras  clearly  the  same  church  under  both  dispen- 
sations. In  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  St.  Paul  establish- 
es and  illustrates  this  doctrine,  by  showing  how  the  church 
is  continued  while  the  dispensation  is  changed.  u At  that 
time,”  (i.e.  while  they  were  idolatrous  Gentiles),  “ ye  were 
without  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise  ; hav- 
ing no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world.”  He 
then  shows  them  how,  as  Gentile  believers,  they  were 
brought  into  the  ancient  church  of  God,  as  it  now  exists 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  viz.  by  abolishing  the 
ceremonial  law,  which  had  always  been  as  a partition  wall 
between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  This  wall  of  separation 
having  been  broken  down,  or  the  ceremonial  law  abolish- 
ed, by  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, [d)  the  church  is  now  en- 
larged by  the  accession  of  Gentile  believers.  u Now. 
therefore,”  (he  tells  them),  “ ye  are  no  more  strangers  and 
foreigners ;”  (i.e.  ye  are  no  more  aliens  from  the  common- 
wealth ' of  Israel ; and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of 
promise  made  with  that  people  ;)  but  fellow-citizens  with 
the  saints,”  (God’s  ancient  covenant  people  being  often 
called  by  this  name),  (e)  u and  of  the  household  of  God  ; 
and  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  pro* 

h Compare  Jer.  xi,  13, 17,  with  Rom.  xi,  4,  5. 

c Matt.  xxi;  43.  dEph.  ii,  12;  ii,  15,  16.  e Pa.  cxlviii*  1-4*. 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 29 

phetsf  (the  apostles  under  the  new,  and  the  prophets  un- 
der the  old  dispensation,  both  building  upon  the  same 
foundation),  u Jesus  Cfirist  himself  being  the  chief  corner 
stone , in  whom  all  the  building  fitly  joined  together , grow* 
eth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  theLord.”(^)  How  can  the 
sameness  of  the  church,  with  the  change  of  its  dispensa- 
tion, be  illustrated  more  clearly  than  it  is  done  by  St.  Paul 
in  this  passage  ? In  the  next  chapter,  the  same  subject  be- 
ing continued,  the  apostle  says — “That  the  Gentiles”  (i.e* 
Gentile  believers,  when  added  to  the  Christian  church) 
“should  be  fellow  heirs,”  (i.e.  with  the  Jews),  “ and  of 
the  same  body , and  partakers  of  his  promise  in  Christ  by 
the  gospel.”(g)  In  the  15th  chapter  of  the  Acts,  v.  14 — 
17,  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  and  their  addition  to 
the  church,  is  spoken  of,  as  “ building  again  the  taberna- 
cle of  David,  that  had  fallen  down  ; building  again  its  ru- 
ins, and  setting  it  up  ;”  which  must  be  understood  as  rais- 
ing up  the  church  of  God,  which,  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation, had  fallen  to  decay,  like  a shattered  building  ; re- 
pairing it,  enlarging  it,  and  making  it  a spacious  and  beau- 
tiful edifice.  This  is  the  fulfilment  of  a prophecy  record- 
ed in  Amos  ix.  11,  12.  Surely,  then,  the  ancient  church 
was  not  abolished,  and  a new  one  set  up  on  a different 
foundation. 

Con. — If  the  church  be  essentially  the  same  under  both 
dispensations,  I should  expect  to  find  it  distinguished  by  the 
same  names. 

Min. — Your  expectations,  then,  exactly  accord  with  the 
facts.  It  is  called  by  the  following  names  under  both  dis- 
pensations, as  you  may  see,  by  examining  and  comparing 
'the  passages  referred  to,  viz  : The  church  ;{h)  God’s  her - 
forge  ;(i)  his  portion  ;(j)  the  people  of  God;{k)  God’s 

f Eph.  ii,  19 — 21.  g Eph.  iii,  6. 

h Acts  vii,  38,*  with  viii.  1. 

i Jer.  xii,  7 — 9,  with  1 Pet.  v,  3. 

j Deut.  xxxii,  9,  with  Zech.  ii,  12. 

lc  Heb.  xi,  25,  with  1 Pet.  ii,  10.  & Rom.  ix,  25. 

* “ The  whole  nation  or  commonwealth  of  Israel  was  oftenr 
denominated  “ Pasa  e ekklesia  Israel  i.e.  the  whole  church 
of  Israel.  The  word  in  Hebrew  which  is  rendered  in  our  Eng- 
lish bibles,  congregation,  assembly,  &c.  when  applied  to  the 
people  of  Israel,  is  ekklesia  by  the  Septuagint,  which  is  trans- 
lated church  in  the  New-Testament.”  “I  know  not,”  (says 
Dr.  Campbell),  “ for  what  reason  our  English  translators  have 


30  Conversations  on  Baptism . 

peculiar  people  ;(l)  his  chosen  people  ;(m)  children  of 
God;{n ) sons  of  God  ;(o)  saints ;{p)  beloved ;{q)  redeem- 
ed of  the  Lord  ;{r)  his  sheep. (s)  In  a word,  almost  eve- 
ry significant  and  endearing  name  is  applied  to  the  church 
under  both  dispensations  ; which  must  be  strong  evidence, 
that  under  both  dispensations,  the  church  must  be,  essen- 
tially, the  same  body. 

Con.~ There  is  one  significant  name  that  was  never 
applied  to  the  ancient  church.  u The  disciples  were  call- 
ed Christians  first  at  Antioch.  ”(/) 

Min. — The  reason  is  obvious  why  they  were  not  called 
Christians  till  after  the  appearing  and  ministration  of 
Christ.  But  this  weakens  not  the  argument  we  are  now 
considering,  to  prove  the  sameness  of  the  church  ; for  it 
was  prophesied  by  Isaiah  that  the  church  should  be  called 
by  a new  name , when  it  should  be  enlarged  to  embrace  the 
Gentiles  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  Gentiles 
shall  see  thy  righteousness,  and  all  kings  thy  glory  ; and 
thou  shalt  be  called  by  a new  name,  which  the  mouth  of  the 
Lord  shall  name.”(t<)  Again — u Ye  shall  leave  your  name 
for  a curse  to  my  chosen  ; for  the  Lord  shall  slay  thee,  and 
call  his  servants  by  another  name.”(^) 

Con.— Before  we  leave  this  branch  of  the  subject,  I 
have  one  enquiry  to  make,  which  relates  to  the  discipline 
of  the  Jewish  church.  It  is  manifest  that  this  church  was 
very  corrupt ; few,  comparatively,  gave  evidence  of  piety. 
How,  then,  could  the  discipline  of  this  church  be  such,  as 
to  accord  with  its  character  as  the  true  church  of  God  ? 

Min. — The  corrupt  practice  of  the  church  must  not  be 
confounded  with  the  nature  of  God’s  requirements.  The> 

l Deut.  xiv,  2,  with  Titus  ii,  14. 

m 1 Chron.  xvi,  13,  k Ex.  xix,  5,  6,  with  1 Pet.  ii*  9-.- 

n Deut.  xi r.  1 with  Rom.  ix,  26. 

o Ex.  ir,  22,  23,  with  1 John,  iii,  1. 

p Ps.  cxlviii,  14,  and  cxlix,  1,  2,  with  Phil,  i,  1. 

q Jer.  xi,  15,  with  Rom.  ix>25. 

r Isa.  xliii,  1,  with  lxii,  12. 

s Jer.  xxiii,  1,  with  John  x,  2,  4,  and  Mat.  XV.  24. 
t Acts  xi,  26.  u Isa.  lxii,  2.  v Isa.  lxv,  15. 

never  admitted  the  word  church  into  the  Old-Testament,  not- 
withstanding* the  frequent  use  which  they  have  made  of  it  in 
their  translation  of  the  N ew —CampbeWs  Lectures  on  Eccle~ 
siastical  History , pp.  108,  163. 


31 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

rules  of  discipline  which  God  established  in  this  church 
were  manifestly  designed  to  maintain  the  spirit  and  prac- 
tice of  true  religion.  All  who  were  guilty  of  gross  offen- 
ces, were  to  be  cut  off  from  the  church  by  death  or  other- 
wise. They  were  thus  to  be  cut  off  for  idolatry, (w) 
blasphemy, (#)  murder, (j/)  lewdness, (z)  Sabbath  break- 
ing,(a)  disobedience  to  parents, (b)  neglect  of  divine  ordi- 
nances, (c)  and  for  every  other  hind  of  presumptuous  trans- 
gression.(d)  For  offences  of  less  magnitude,  they  were 
to  bring  a trespass  offering  to  the  Lord,  as  a manifestation 
of  their  penitence,  and  to  make  restitution  to  all  whom 
they  had  injured,  (e)  All  who  had  transgressed  and  refu- 
sed to  make  restitution,  or  to  manifest  their  penitence  on 
the  day  of  atonement,  and  seek  for  pardon  and  restoration  to 
the  divine  favour,  according  to  the  law,  were  to  be  cut  off 
from  among  this  people. (f)  Had  this  course  of  disci- 
pline been  strictly  observed,  there  would  not  have  been  a 
person  continued  among  this  people,  and  enjoying  the  pri- 
vileges of  this  church,  who  did  not  give  credible  evidence 
of  piety. 

The  hour  for  tea  has  now  arrived.  We  will  suspend,  if 
you  please,  this  conversation  till  evening. 

Con. — I will  endeavour,  Sir,  to  call  on  you  this  evening, 
at  an  early  hour. 

w Ex.  xxii,  20.  Num.  ix,  13,  & xix,  20. 

x Lev.  xxir,  15, 16.  d Num.  xv,  30,  31,  and  Deut.  xvii, 
y Lev.  xxiv,  17.  12,13. 

2 Lev.  xviii  29.  e Lev.  vi,  2—7,  & v,  14 — 19,  & ir* 

a Ex.  xxxi,  14.  2 — 35. 

b Ex.  xxi,  15,  17.  f Num.  xix,  20.  Lev.  xxiii.  29 
c Lev.  xxiii,  29,  30  : Deut.  xxvii,  26. 


CONVERSATION  IV. 

Containing  arguments  directly  in  support  of  infant  bap- 
tism. 

Minister. — You  are  quite  punctual,  Sir,  to  fulfil  your  en- 
gagements this  evening. 

Convert. — It  is  very  common  to  be  punctual  in  attending 
to  subjects  that  interest  us.  We  have  now  arrived  to  that 


32 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

part  of  our  subject  in  which  I am  most  deeply  interested  ; 
it  respects,  directly,  the  proof  of  infant  baptism.  Will  you 
be  pleased,  Sir,  to  confine  your  remarks  to  this  point  ? 

Min . — In  support  of  this  doctrine,  I would  direct  your 
attention  to  three  heads  of  argument.  One  is  derived 
from  the  Abrahamic  covenant ; another  from  the  practice 
of  the  Apostles ; and  a third  from  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian church . 

Con. — Will  you  present,  Sir,  distinctly,  a view  of  the 
argument  derived  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant  ? 

Min. — Though  this  was  briefly  stated  in  our  first  con- 
versation, yet  it  may  be  useful  here  to  dwell  upon  it  with 
more  particularity.  In  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  believers 
were  commanded  to  devote  their  children  to  God,  by  ap- 
plying to  them  the  appointed  seal  or  token  of  his  covenant. 
This  command  has  never  been  revoked ; it  is  therefore 
still  binding  on  believers.  This  seal  or  token  was  form- 
erly circumcision  ; it  is  now  baptism.  Therefore,  believ- 
ers are  now  required  to  devote  their  children  to  God  in 
baptism. 

Con. — The  covenant,  I believe,  is  essentially  the  same, 
under  both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations.  The 
Christian  church,  I am  satisfied,  was  established  on  the 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,  of  which  circumcision  was 
the  token  ; but  I do  not  see  clearly  that  baptism  is  now 
the  token  of  this  covenant. 

Min. — If  baptism  be  not  the  token  of  this  covenant,  it 
must  be  left  wiihouut  any  token  or  seal,  under  the  Christian 
dispensation.  Circumcision,  the  former  token,  is  certain- 
ly abolished ; and  no  one  ever  imagined  that  any  thing  be- 
side baptism  has  been  instituted  in  its  place.  But  it 
is  incredible  that  God’s  covenant  should  be  without  any 
seal  for  so  many  centuries.  It  is  reasonable,  therefore,  to 
conclude  that  its  present  seal  or  token  is  baptism.  A- 
gain — Circumcision  and  baptism  denote  the  same  thing , 
and  are  designed  for  the  same  ends . Circumcision  im- 
plied the  doctrine  that  all  mankind  are  sinners,  and  deno- 
ted the  necessity  of  an  internal  cleansing  from  sin  by  the 
spirit  of  God.  (a)  Baptism,  also,  implies  the  same  doc- 
trine, and  denotes  the  same  thing.  (5)  Spiritual  circumcisi 

a Deut.  x.  16,  and  xxx,6  : Col.  ii,  11  : Rom.  ii,  29. 

b Acts  xxii,  16,  ii,  38,  x,  47, 48,  &xi,  16.  1 Cor.  xii,  13  ; 

Col.  ii.  12* 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 30 

loll,  and  spiritual  baptism,  or  that  which  is  signified  by  these 
external  rites,  is  precisely  the  same  thing  ; as  the  apostle 
plainly  teaches  us.(c)  Baptism,  by  the  ancients,  was  call- 
ed Christian  circumcision.  Circumcision  was  a seal  of  the 
believer’s  faith.(d)  So  is  baptism. {e)  Circumcision  was 
a token  which  distinguished  the  covenant  people  of  God  ; 
it  denoted  their  acceptance  of  the  terms  of  his  covenant, 
with  a profession  of  their  interest  in  its  distinguishing 
blessings.  Baptism,  also,  is  a token,  which  distinguishes 
God’s  covenant  people.^/’)  It  defiotes  their  acceptance 
of  the  terms  of  this  covenant,  and  their  profession  of  an 
interest  in  its  peculiar  blessings,  (g*)  As  both  are  designed 
to  answer  the  same  ends,  it  is  an  obvious  conclusion  that 
they  are  seals  of  the  same  covenant.  Circumcision  was 
abolished  at  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  ;(A)  and  baptism  was 
instituted  shortly  after  he  rose  from  the  dead.  Circumcis- 
ion continued  to  the  close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  ; and 
baptism  commenced  with  the  Christian  dispensation.  How 
then  can  we  avoid  the  obvious  conclusion  that  baptism  is 
appointed  in  the  place  of  circumcision  ; and  therefore  is 
to  be  applied  to  the  same  subjects. 

Con . — The  Jewish  dispensation,  you  observe,  was  abol- 
ished when  our  Saviour  was  crucified.  Were  not  infants 
then  excluded  from  the  church  with  all  the  other  Jewish 
rites  ? 

Min. — The  dedication  of  infants  to  God  was  not  prop- 
erly a Jewish  rite.  It  did  not  respect  the  mode  or  admin- 
istration of  the  covenant ; but  the  subjects  to  which  the 
covenant  related.  A change  in  the  dispensation,  or  ex- 
ternal ordinances,  implies  no  change  in  tiie  subjects  to 
which  these  ordinances  are  to  be  applied.  As  the  chil- 
dren of  believers,  under  the  former  dispensation,  were  to 
be  dedicated  to  God  in  covenant,  according  to  the  divine 
command  ; they  are  now  to  be  thus  dedicated,  seeing  the 
command  for  doing  this  has  not  been  done  away ; and 
there  is  the  same  reason  for  it  now  that  there  ever 
has  been.  Every  command  must  be  in  force  until  it  is 
revoked  or  annulled  by  the  same  authority  that  gave  it. 
But  how  can  believers  perform  this  duty,  if  baptism  does- 

c Col.  ii,  11,  12.  f Acts  ii,  41. 

d Rom.  iv*  11.  g Acts  ii,  38,  39,  & x,  47. 

t Mark  xvi,  16;  Acts  viii^ 3T.  h Eph.  ii,  1 5^16  : Col»  ii,.  1A 


34  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

not  take  the  place  of  circumcision  ; if  their  children  are 
not  to  be  baptised?  There  can  be  no  other  way  of  devoting* 
them  to  God,  as  they  did  under  the  former  dispensation. 

Con. — None  but  males  were  directed  to  be  circumci- 
sed. Why  then  do  we  baptise  female  children  ? 

Min. — Females  were  included  in  the  covenant  former- 
ly, as  fully  as  they  now  are  ; and  were  evidently  consider- 
ed as  represented  by  the  males.  We  have  a particular  di- 
rection that  they  should  be  baptised.  The  fact  that  we  are 
directed  to  extend  baptism  to  females,  by  no  means  im- 
plies that  it  does  not  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision, 
and  is  not  to  be  extended  to  the  children  of  believers. 

Con. — Why  was  there  not  a command  to  baptise  in- 
fants, if  they  were  to  be  baptised  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation ? 

Min. — I will  answer  you  in  the  words  of  the  Encyclo- 
paedia, in  speaking  to  this  point.  u Where  institutions 
are  to  remain  the  same  as  they  have  been,  a command  for 
them  to  remain  so,  would  not  only  be  superfluous,  but  it 
would  be  foolish.”  («) 

Con. — Our  Saviour  says,  u He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tised, shall  be  saved.”(&)  Does  not  this  show  that  we 
must  believe  before  we  can  be  baptised  ; and  of  course, 
that  infants,  who  are  not  capable  of  believing,  can  have  no 
right  to  baptism  ? 

Min. — If  this  passage  proves  that  infants  cannot  be  bap- 
tised, it  equally  proves  that  they  cannot  be  saved.  If  none 
can  be  baptised  before  they  believe,  because  believeth , in 
this  passage,  stands  before  baptised , then  none  can  be  sa- 
ved before  they  believe  ; because  believeth , here,  stands 
before  saved . If  this  passage  excludes  all  infants  from 
baptism,  it  will,  of  course,  exclude  them  all  from  salvation. 
Those  who  will  not  admit  this  conclusion,  must  grant  that 
there  is  no  force  in  this  objection.  By  the  same  reason- 
ing, from  another  passage,  we  might  prove  directly  the  op- 
posite : u Except  a man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spi- 
rit, he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.”(Z)  To  be 
born  of  water,  is  generally  understood  to  be  baptised. 
This  was  the  sentiment  of  all  ancient  Christians,  respect- 
ing this  passage.  But  this  is  put  before  being  born  of  the 
Spirit ; therefore,  baptism  must  always  be  before  regene  * 

i Art.  Baptism,  page  158.  k Mark  xvi,  16.  I John  iii,  6- 


Conversations  on  Baptism.  35 

ration.  This  shows  that  your  objection  is  not  well  found- 
ed. What  is  said  in  this  passage  is  strictly  true  of  those 
who  have  been  baptised  in  infancy,  and  afterwards  become 
believers.  They  believe,  and  are  baptised,  therefore,  they 
shall  be  saved.  Under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  the  di- 
vine direction  was,  to  Gentiles,  and  to  all  who  had  not  re- 
ceived the  rite  of  circumcision — Believe,  or  repent,  and 
be  circumcised.  These  were  required  as  pre-requisites  to 
this  ordinance ; and  those  who  were  circumcised  profess- 
ed to  comply  with  these  directions.  Under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  this  direction  applies  to  baptism.  In  both 
cases,  it  applies  to  those,  and  those  only,  who  were  capa- 
ble of  believing  or  repenting,  and  who  had  not  been  pre- 
viously circumcised  or  baptised  according  to  the  divine 
direction.  It  presents  no  objection,  therefore,  against  the 
baptism  of  infants  not  capable  of  believing.  By  the  figure 
of  the  olive  tree,  in  the  use  which  St.  Paul  makes  of  it,  in 
the  11th  chapter  to  the  Romans,  we  may  have  a clear  il- 
lustration of  this  doctrine.  You  will  here  bear  in  mind 
what  has  been  said  upon  this  figure.  I shall  apply  it,  in 
this  case,  only  to  the  standing  of  children.  And  here  I 
would  ask — How  were  the  unfruitful  branches  broken  off 
from  this  olive  tree  ? i.  e.  how  were  the  unbelieving  Jews 
excluded  from  the  church  ? Doubtless  it  was  just  as  they 
had  stood  in  it ; parents  and  children  together,  under  the 
seal  of  the  covenant.  How  did  the  fruitful  branches  con- 
tinue their  standing  in  the  olive  tree  ? How  did  the  be- 
lieving Jews  retain  their  standing  in  the  church  ? Doubt- 
less it  was  just  as  they  had  always  stood  in  it ; parents 
and  children  together,  under  the  seal  of  the  covenant. 
How  were  the  branches  of  the  wild  olive  graffed  into  this 
good  olive  tree  ? How  were  the  believing  Gentiles  brought 
into  the  church  ? Evidently  it  wras  as  the  unfruitful  branch- 
es were  broken  off;  as  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  exclu- 
ded ; as  the  live  branches,  or  believing  Jews,  continued 
their  standing ; parents  and  children  together,  under  the 
seal  of  the  covenant.  And  how  will  these  unfruitful  branch- 
es, that  had  been  broken  off,  be  again  graffed  into  their 
own  olive  tree  ? How  will  the  Jews  that  had  been  exclu- 
ded for  their  unbelief,  when  converted  to  Christianity,  be 
again  brought  into  the  church  ? Will  it  not  be  in  the  same 
way  that  they  had  been  excluded  from  it ; parents  and 
children  together,  under  the  seal  of  the  covenant  ? Does 


36 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

not  Jeremiah  refer  to  this,  when  he  says — u Their  child- 
ren, also , shall  he  as  aforetime ; and  their  congregation 
shall  be  established  before  me.”(m) 

Con . — I would  thank  you.  Sir,  to  make  some  remarks 
on  the  practice  of  the  apostles.  Had  they  the  same  view 
of  the  subject  that  you  have  expressed  ; and  did  they  prac- 
tice accordingly  ? 

Min. — There  are  not  many  instances  of  baptism  record- 
ed under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Among  these  there 
is  a record  of  three  household  baptisms.  The  first  in  or- 
der is  that  of  Lydia,  recorded  in  Acts  xvi,  14,  15  : u The 
Lord  opened  the  heart  of  Lydia,  that  she  attended  to  the 
things  that  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when  she  was  bap- 
tised, and  her  household,  she  said  : If  ye  have  judged  me 
to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and  abide 
there.”  That  Lydia  was  the  only  believer  in  this  family, 
appears  from  the  fact,  that  she  only  is  mentioned  when 
the  Apostle  speaks  of  believing ; but  her  household  are 
mentioned  with  her,  when  he  speaks  of  baptism.  Had 
her  household  been  all  believers,  the  conversion  of  each 
one  would  have  been  an  event  of  as  much  importance  as 
that  of  Lydia  herself.  Indeed,  had  they  all  been  convert- 
ed on  this  occasion,  it  would  have  been  a signal  display  of 
grace,  peculiarly  meriting  special  notice  ; an  event  of  far 
greater  importance  than  their  baptism  ; and  could  not  fail, 
we  should  think,  of  being  particularly  noticed  by  the  Apos- 
tle, when  he  recorded  their  baptism.  Neither  should  we 
suppose  that  their  baptism  would  have  been  recorded 
without  any  distinction  of  persons,  merely  as  a household 
baptism ; while  both  the  conversion  and  baptism  of  Lydia 
are  particularly  distinguished  by  name.  It  is  evidently 
implied  in  the  language  which  she  used,  that  Lydia  was 
the  only  believer  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful 
to  the  Lord,”  &c.  Had  all  her  household  just  been  con- 
verted, and  just  made  a profession  of  their  faith  and  obe- 
.dience  to  Christ,  would  she  have  used  such  an  expression 
ns  this,  implying  that  she  herself  was  the  only  believer, 
who,  they  might  charitably  judge,  'would  be  faithful  to  the 
Lord  ? 

Con. — But,  it  is  said  in  the  last  verse  of  this  chapter, 
that  u when  Paul  and  Silas  were  brought  out  of  prison* 


m Jer.  xxx,  £0/ 


37 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

tl*ey  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia,  and  when  they 
had  seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them  and  depart- 
ed.”  Were  not  these  brethren  members  of  Lydia’s  house-, 
hold,  and  evidently  believers. 

Min.— Doubtless  they  were  believers ; but  I see  little 
evidence  that  they  were  members  of  Lydia’s  family.  Paul 
and  Silas  had  just  been  released  from  prison.  They  were 
under  circumstances  of  peculiar  interest,  and  were  imme- 
diately to  leave  the  city.  It  would  have  been  strange,  in- 
deed, if  the  young  converts  in  the  neighbourhood  had  not 
called  upon  them,  in  these  circumstances,  to  rejoice  with 
them  in  their  deliverance,  and  to  receive  their  parting  in- 
structions. 

Con . — -Will  you  consider,  Sir,  the  next  instance  of  house- 
hold baptism. 

Min. — The  next  instance  is  that  of  the  jailor,  recorded 
in  the  33d  verse  of  this  chapter.  44  He  took  them  the 
same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes,  and  was 
baptised,  he  and  all  his,  straightway.”  The  jailor  and  all 
his,  i.  e.  all  who  were  under  his  authority,  who  properly 
belonged  to  his  household,  were  baptised.  This  accords 
with  the  practice  of  the  church  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation, that  when  a Gentile  householder  became  a believer 
he  was  to  be  admitted  into  the  church,  and  his  household 
taken  with  him  under  the  seal  of  the  covenant.  To  this 
the  apostle  probably  had  allusion,  when  he  said — 4 4 Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and 
thy  house.” (n)  It  accords  with  the  direction  which  Peter 
gave  to  his  hearers — 44  Repent,  and  be  baptised,  every  one 
of  you,  for  the  remission  of  sins  ; and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; for  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to 
your  children .”(o) 

Con. — It  is  written,  the  jailor  44  rejoiced,  believing  in 
God,  with  all  his  house.”  Does  not  this  prove  that  his 
'household  were  all  believers  ? 

Min. — I will  refer  you  to  the  notes  of  Dr.  Scott  on  this 
text,  which  all  who  understand  the  Greek  language  know 
to  be  correct.  44  He”  (i.  e.  the  jailor)  44  rejoiced  through 
all  his  house,  or  with  all  his  house,  having  believed  in 
God.  The  word  for  believed  is  in  the  singular  number,” 
(and  of  course,  can  refer  only  to  the  jailor.)  * * * * 


n Acts  xvi,  31. 


D 


o Acts  ii,  38,  39. 


38  Conversations  on  Baptism . 

“ So  that  the  passage  contains  no  proof  that  every  one 
of  his  family  actually  believed.” 

Con.— You  mentioned.  Sir,  three  cases  of  household 
baptism.  What  is  the  third  ? 

Min. — It  is  that  which  St.  Paul  mentions,  in  1 Cor. 
i,  16  “ I baptised,  also,  the  household  of  Stephanas.” 

Con . — It  is  said  that  the  household  of  Stephanas  was 
the  “ first  fruits  of  Achaia ; and  that  they  had  addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministering  of  the  saints.  ”(jp)  Must 
they  not  have  been  ail  believers  ? 

Min . — If  households  were  regarded  in  the  apostles’ 
days,  as  they  were  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  when 
a Gentile  was  brought  to  the  vrorship  of  the  true  God,  and 
his  family  with  him  brought  into  connection  with  the  visi- 
ble church  ; the  household  of  Stephanas  might  well  be 
called  “the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,”  and  be  accustomed  to 
the  hospitality  of  “ ministering  to  the  saints,”  though  Ste- 
phanas were  the  only  true  believer  among  them.  The 
manner  in  which  these  baptisms  are  recorded,  is  different 
from  what  we  should  expect  to  find,  in  case  they  had  all 
been  true  believers ; as  it  is  different  from  that  which  is  usu- 
ally given  by  those  who  reject  household  baptism.  They 
mention  the  individuals  by  name,  as  believing  and  being 
baptised.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  a missionary  jour- 
nal. Should  you  read  on  the  journal  of  some  missionary 
to  the  Heathen,  that  on  a particular  occasion,  a certain 
woman  believed,  and  he  baptised  her,  and  her  household, 
or  family  ; and  that  soon  after,  a certain  man  believed,  and 
he  baptised  him,  and  all  his,  straightway ; and  that  he 
baptised  also  the  household  of  another  man;  what  would 
you  think  were  his  sentiments  and  practice,  in  regard  to 
the  subjects  of  baptism  ? 

Con.— I should  conclude  that  he  believed  in  household 
baptism,  and  that  he  was  accustomed  to  baptise  the  house- 
holds of  believers. 

Min. — Must  you  not  conclude,  then,  that  this  was  the 
sentiment,  and  this  the  practice  of  the  apostles  ? 

Con. — This  may  be  a fair  conclusion  ; but  why  are 
there  not  more  instances  of  household  baptism  recorded 
by  the  apostles,  if  this  were  their  general  practice  ? 

Min. — Of  the  few  instances  which  are  recorded  of  th« 


p l Cor.  xvi;  15f 


39 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

apostles’  baptising,  several  are  mentioned  collectively.  In 
every  instance  where  the  person  baptised  is  distinguished 
as  the  head  of  a family,  his  household  is  mentioned,  as 
baptised  with  him.  This  is  perhaps  all  that  we  could  ex- 
pect to  find  recorded,  in  case  the  apostles  were  uniformly 
in  this  practice. 

Con. — Are  there  any  other  passages  that  illustrate  this 
doctrine  ? 

Min.— It  is  implied  in  the  words  of  the  apostle  Paul : — 
u The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife  ; and 
the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband ; else 
were  your  children  unclean  ; but  now  are  they  holy. ”(2) 
As  the  word  holy,  in  this  passage,  cannot  mean  holiness  of 
heart,  it  must  mean  external  or  consecrated  holiness  ; i.e. 
something  which  is  especially  consecrated  to  God.  The  case 
referred  to  appears  to  be  this.  There  were  many  instances 
in  the  apostles’  days  in  which  the  wife  or  husband  only  was  a 
believer;  and  there  were  children  belonging  to  such  families. 
An  important  question  would  now  arise,  whether  these 
children  ought  to  be  devoted  to  God  in  baptism  ? If  con- 
sidered as  the  children  of  the  believing  parent,  they  ought 
to  be  thus  devoted ; but  if  considered  as  the  children  of 
the  unbeliever,  they  would  have  no  right  to  this  ordinance. 
The  apostle  decides,  that  the  influence  of  the  unbeliever, 
to  deprive  the  children  of  this  ordinance,  shall  be  so  far 
removed  by  the  faith  of  the  believing  parent,  that  the  chil- 
dren shall  not  be  excluded  from  baptism  ; but  shall  have 
the  same  privilege  in  this  respect,  as  though  both  the  pa- 
rents were  believers.  Most  of  the  ancient  writer^  under- 
stood this  passage  in  this  sense.  There  is  another  passage 
in  Matthew  xix.  14 — “ Jesus  said,  suffer  little  children, 
and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me  ; for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God.”  These  children  were  brought  to 
Christ  by  their  parents,  who  were  doubtless  believers,  for 
his  blessing.  And  u he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  and 
put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them.”(r)  The 
reason  which  he  assigns  for  approving  this  act  of  these 
believing  parents,  and  for  blessing  these  children  accord- 
ing to  their  request,  is — u For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God.”  The  relation  which  these  children  of  believing 
parents  stood  in  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  being  the  partic- 

2 1 Cor,  viii,  14,  r Mark  x,  16, 


40 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

ular  reason  which  Christ  gives  why  they  should  be  brought 
to  him  for  his  blessing ; the  conclusion  seems  obvious, 
that  they  are  proper  subjects  of  the  token  of  that  cove- 
nant, which  contains  at)  the  blessings  of  God’s  kingdom. 

Con. — You  mentioned,  Sir,  the  history  of  the  Christian 
church , as  furnishing  an  argument  in  support  of  infant 
baptism.  Will  you  please  to  state  the  evidence  which  is 
derived  from  this  source  ? 

Mm. — I must  be  very  brief  in  illustrating  this  point. 
“ The  earliest  direct  testimonies  we  have  on  the  subject, 
are  clear  and  decisive,  that  infant  baptism  was  uniformly 
practiced  in  the  church  in  the  apostles’  days,  and  down- 
wards for  many  ages.”  Origen,  who  flourished  about  one 
hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  says— “ What  is  the  rea- 
son, that  whereas  the  baptism  of  the  church  is  given  for 
forgiveness  of  sins,  infants,  also,  by  the  usage  of  the  church, 
are  baptised  ; when  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  that 
wanted  forgiveness  and  mercy,  baptism  would  be  needless 
to  them  V\s)  At  a council  of  sixty-six  bishops  convened 
at  Carthage,  by  Cyprian,  about  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  the  apostles,  the  question  was  considered, 
whether  the  baptism  of  infants  ought  to  be  deferred  to 
the  eighth  day,  according  to  the  law  of  circumcision  ? It 
was  decided  unanimously  in  the  negative,  (t)  There  vras 
no  question  here  in  regard  to  the  validity  and  universal 
practice  of  infant  baptism.  “ Gregory , Nazianzen , Basil, 
Ambrose , Chrysostom  and  Jerome , all  of  whom  flourished 
within  about  one  hundred  years  of  Origen  and  Cyprian, 
are  all  explicit  on  this  subject ; explain  the  design  of  in- 
fant baptism  ; mention  it  as  coming  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  speak  of  it  as  the  universal  and  undisputed 
practice  of  the  church.”  About  three  hundred  years  af- 
ter the  apostles,  the  Pelagian  controversy  arose  about  ori- 
ginal sin.  4t-If  any  one  do  ask  for  divine  authority  in  this 
matter,”  (says  Austin  against  Pelagius,  speaking  of  infant 
baptism), “that  which  the  whole  church  practises,  and 
which  was  not  instituted  by  councils,  but  was  ever  in  use , 
Is  very  reasonably  believed  to  be  no  other  than  a thing  de- 
livered by  authority  of  the  apostles. ”(w)  Again — u They” 
(i.  e.  the  Pelagians)  “ grant  that  infants  must  be  baptised, 

s Wall’s  His.  In.  Bap.  vol.  i,  page  82. 

t ib.  vol.  i,  p.  102.  u ib.  vol.  ii,  p.  203^ 


41 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

y not  being  able  to  oppose  the  authority  of  the  whole 
church i which  was  doubtless  delivered  by  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles.”(r>)  Again,  he  declares  that  he  u never  met  with 
any  Christian , catholic  or  sectary , nor  until  any  writer , that 
owned  the  scriptures,  who  taught  any  other  doctrine,” 
than  that  infants  are  to  be  baptised- (w)  This  was  but 
three  hundred  years  from  the  time  of  the  apostles.  Yet 
Austin  had  so  extensive  a knowledge  of  the  history  of  the 
church,  that  he  wrote  and  published  a history  of  all  the 
sects , that  had  been  in  Christendom  since  the  days  of  our 
Saviour.  With  this  argument  in  proof  of  original  sin, 
Pelagius  and  his  followers  were  constantly  pressed,  and 
found  the  greatest  difficulty.  To  use  the  language  of 
Dr.  Wall,  it  44  nettled  and  puzzled  Pelagius  more  than  all 
that  was  said  by  Austin.”  Yet  Pelagius  never  pretended 
to  deny  this  doctrine.  He  says — -44  Men  do  slander  him, 
as  if  he  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants 
and  then  declares,  that  he  64  never  heard , wo,  not  even  any 
impious  heretic , that  would  say  that  infants  are  not  to  re- 
ceive baptism.”  44  Who”  (says  he)  44  can  be  so  impious 
as  to  hinder  infants  from  being  baptised.  ”(#)  Pelagius 
was  a man  of  great  reading,  and  had  travelled  extensively. 
He  was  born  in  Britain,  resided  some  time  at  Rome,  and 
made  the  tour  of  christianised  Africa  and  Asia,  by  the 
way  of  Egypt  and  Jerusalem.  Yet  in  the  whole  of  his 
reading  and  his  travels,  he  never  heard  of  any  who  denied 
the  divine  institution  of  infant  baptism.  This  controver- 
sy continued  a long  time,  and  engaged  the  greatest  learn- 
ing and  talents  of  the  age  ; and  all,  on  both  sides,  admitted 
the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  as  a divine  institution.  Cat- 
alogues of  all  the  primitive  sects  of  Christians  were  early 
written,  and  are  now  extant.  Ireneus,  a disciple  of  Poly- 
carp,  who  was  a companion  of  St.  John,  wrote  his  trea- 
tise concerning  sects,  about  seventy-six  years  after  the 
death  of  St.  John.  In  this  he  mentions,  professedly,  all  the 
sects  which  arose  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  which 
had  sprung  up  after  their  death.  Epiphanius,  who  wrote 
about  two  hundred  and  seventy  years  after  the  apostlesr 
mentions  eighty,  which  he  says  are  44  all  the  sects  of  Chris- 
tians that  he  had  ever  heard  of  in  the  world.”  Austin, 
who  wrote  a little  later,  mentions  eighty-eight;  and  Phir 


42  Conversations  on  Baptism* 

lostrius,  who  made  a difference  of  opinion  about  any  tri- 
fling matter  a heresy,  gives  the  number  of  different  sects 
at  one  hundred.  Theodoret’s  account  of  heresies  was 
written  after  the  apostles  about  three  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  and  is  very  learned,  methodical,  particular,  and 
full.” (y)  w In  all  these  several  catalogues,  the  differences 
of  opinion  which  obtained  in  the  primitive  ages  respecting 
baptism,  are  particularly  recounted,  and  minutely  desig- 
nated. But  in  no  one  of  these  catalogues  is  there  to  he 
found  the  least  intimation  of  any  (except  such  as  denied 
water  baptism  altogether)  who  did  not  hold  to  the  baptism 
of  infants  as  a divine  institution Joseph  Milner,  the 
ecclesiastical  historian,  speaking  of  the  council  at  Car- 
thage, convened  by  Cyprian  A.  D.  253,  to  consider  wheth- 
er the  baptism  of  infants  should  be  deferred  to  the  eighth 
day,  says  : “To  those  who  say  that  the  custom  of  baptis- 
ing children  was  not  derived  from  the  apostolic  ages,  the 
traditional  argument  may  fairly  run  in  language  nearly 
scriptural.  If  any  man  seem  to  be  contentious,  we 
have  never  had  such  a custom  as  that  of  confining  bap- 
tism to  adults,  wetter  the  churches  of  God.  ”(2)  The  edi- 
tors of  the  Christian  Observer,  a periodical  work,  now 
publishing  in  England,  which  has  never  been  exceeded  for 
learning,  talents,  candour  and  piety,  by  any  thing  that  has 
ever  appeared  in  the  English  language,  have  published  the 
following  sentence  as  their  own  declaration  ; and  stand  ac- 
countable to  the  public  for  its  correctness  as  it  relates  to 
historical  facts,  viz.  “ We  challenge  the  opponents  of  in- 
fant baptism  to  produce  one  single  instance,  for  ike  first* 
thousand  years  of  Christianity , of  any  writer  that  has  left 
it  on  record  as  his  opinion  that  infant  baptism  is  not  law- 
ful to  be  practised ; some  few  declared  heretics  excepted, 
who  rejected  water  baptism  altogether.”  Dr.  Wall,  in 
his  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  has  the  following  words  : — * 
“ For  the  first  four  hundred  years,  there  appears  only  one 
man,  Tertullian,  * who  advised  the  delay  of  infant  bap- 

y Wall’s  His.  voh  ii,  p.  304,  5.  z Eccl.  His,  vol.  i,  p.  401; 

* Tertulian  embraced  the  sentiment,  that  sins  committed  af- 
ter baptism  were  next  to  being  unpardonable ; and  for  this  rea- 
son, advised  the  delay  of  baptism  till  the  person  had  arrived  to 
adult  age.  For  the  same  reason,  he  advised  that  persons 
should  not  be  baptised  till  after  they  were  married . But  in 


Conversations  on  Baptism.  43 

Usm  in  some  cases;  and  one  Gregory,  who  did,  perhaps, 
practice  such  delay  in  case  of  his  own  children  ; but  no 
society  so  thinking  or  practising,  nor  one  man  so  saying 
that  it  was  unlawful  to  baptise  infants.  In  the  next  seven 
hundred  years,  there  is  not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be 
found,  that  either  spoke  or  practised  such  delay  ; but  all 
the  contrary.  And  when  about  the  year  1130,  one  sect 
among  the  Waldenses  declared  against  the  baptising  of 
infants,  as  being  incapable  of  salvation,  the  remaining 
body  of  that  people  rejected  that  opinion  ; and  the  sect 
that  still  held  to  it  quickly  dwindled  away  and  disappeared, 
and  there  was  nothing  more  heard  of  holding  that  tenet, 
till  the  year  1522.” (a)  Again  he  observes,  speaking  of 
the  first  thousand  years  of  Christianity — u There  is  not  one 
saying , quotation  or  example,  that  makes  against  it”  (i.  e. 
infant  baptism),  “ produced  or  pretended , but  what  has 
been  clearly  shewn  to  be  a mistake .”  u As  in  the  first 
four  hundred  years,  there  is  none  but  one  Tertullian,  who 
advised  it  to  be  deferred  till  the  age  of  reason  ; and  one 
Nazianzen,  (Gregory),  till  three  years  of  age,  in  case  of 
no  danger  of  death  ; so  in  the  following  six  hundred 
years,  there  is  no  account  or  report  of  any  one  man  that 
opposed  it  at  all.” (b)  “ The  Christians  of  St.  Thomas,  in 

India,  were  utterly  unknown,  and  not  heard  of  by  us  of 
the  west,  for  one  thousand  years  or  more,  viz.  till  about 
the  year  1500,  when  those  parts  were  discovered  by  the 
Portuguese.”  Here,  were  “ fifteen  or  sixteen  thousand 
families,”  who  wrere  all  in  the  practice  of  infant  baptism. 
They  had  never  heard  of  such  a part  of  the  world  as  Eu- 
rope, and  must  have  derived  the  practice  of  infant  baptism 
from  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  (c)  To  all  this  may 
be  added  the  acknowledgment  of  Menno,  a distinguished 
antipedobaptist  of  the  16th  century,  and  leader  of  a large 
and  respectable  sect  of  Christians,  called  Mennonists  or 
Minnists,  who  rejected  infant  baptism.  Speaking  of 
certain  persons  w7ho  endeavoured  to  fix  the  origin  of  in- 

a Wall’s  His.  vol.  ii,  p.  386.  b ib.  p.  179.  e ib.  p.  218,  219 

ease  of  sickness,  or  danger  of  death*  he  advised  that  children 
should  be  baptised  without  delay.  Gregory’s  advice  was  similar 
to  Tertullian’s.  Both  spoke  of  infant  baptism  as  the  universal 
practice  of  the  church ; nor  did  they  pretend  that  it  was  not 
derived  from  the  apostles*. 


44  Conversations  on  Baptism . 

fitnt  baptism  upon  some  Pope  of  Rome — •“  Merino  (says 
Dr.  Wall)  had  more  sense,  or  was  more  wary,  than  to  do 
so.  He  was  forced  to  aver  that  it  had  been  in  use  from 
die  apostles’  time.”(<2)  Dr.  Worcester,  in  his  discourses 
on  infant  baptism,  has  the  following  declaration  u For 
more  than  three  thousand  years,”  (referring  to  the  period 
from  the  days  of  Abraham  to  the  rise  of  the  Petrobrusians, 
A.D.  1 130),  “ the  seal  of  the  covenant  was  universally  ap- 
plied to  the  seed  of  the  church ; no  one  forbidding  iT.”(e) 
And  nothing  has  yet  appeared  from  the  history  of  the 
church,  to  disprove  the  correctness  of  this  assertion. 
Thus  I have  given  you  a summary  view  of  the  historical 
testimony  in  support  of  infant  baptism. 

Cow.— Is  there  not  ground,  Sir,  to  question  the  correct- 
ness of  these  as  historical  facts  ? 

Min . — The  character  of  the  authors,  that  have  given 
these  statements,  is  beyond  impeachment  for  correctness 
and  candour.  Dr.  Milner,  as  a historian,  is  in  universal 
estimation  for  the  accuracy  of  all  his  statements.  None 
will  question  the  learning  or  candor  of  the  editors  of  the 
Christian  Observer.  The  other  statements  have  all  been 
taken  from  Dr.  Wall’s  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  Dr. 
W orcester’s  Discourses  and  Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin.  The 
character  of  Dr.  Worcester  is  universally  known.  To 
those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  character  of  Dr.  Wall, 
nothing  need  be  said  of  his  learning,  accuracy  and  candor  ; 
and  to  those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  his  character, 
the  following  statement  may  be  sufficient.  Mr.  Whiston, 
a Baptist,  and  a man  of  eminence  for  literature  in  England, 
in  a public  address  to  his  brethren,  frankly  declares,  that 
“ Dr.  Wall’s  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  to  the  facts , 
appeared  to  him  most  accurately  done , and  might  he  de- 
pended on  hy  the  Baptists  them selves.  ”(/)  Such  is  the 
character  of  the  authorities  produced  in  support  of  this 
historical  testimony. 

Con. — If  this  be  the  state  of  historical  facts,  in  regards 
to  infant  baptism,  the  doctrine,  I must  acknowledge,  has 
all  that  support  which  historical  testimony  can  give  it. 

Min. — My  avocations  will  not  admit  of  proceeding  any 
further  at  this  time.  Call*  if  you  please,  to-morrow 

d Wall’s  His.  vol.  ii,  p.  232.  e ib.  p.  57, 

/ Worcester’s  Discourses.  j».  59,  note. 


45 


Conversations  on  Baptism* 

evening ; when,  Providence  permitting,  I shall  be  ready  to 
resume  our  conversation  on  this  subject. 


CONVERSATION  V. 

On  the  use  of  Infant  Baptism . 

Convert — According  to  your  proposal,  Sir,  I have  call- 
ed on  you  this  evening ; and  the  particular  object  of  my 
enquiry  now  is,  to  understand  the  use  of  infant  baptism. 
I often  hear  this  question  asked—44  What  good  does  it  do 
to  baptise  infants?” 

Minister.— If  this  be  a divine  institution,  it  is  doubtless 
designed  for  wise  ends ; but  our  obligations  to  observe  it 
do  not  depend  on  our  knowing  what  these  ends  are. 
We  might  ask,  with  equal  propriety,  what  good  does  it  do 
to  baptise  adults  ? Does  it  wash  away  their  sins,  or  pro- 
duce purity  of  heart  ? You  will  doubtless  answer,  no.  It 
is  only  observed  as  an  external  rite  ; as  a commanded  du- 
ty. It  is  to  answer  a good  conscience.  The  same  is  the 
use  of  infant  baptism.  It  is  observed,  by  the  parent,  as  a 
divine  requirement ; as  complying  with  a divine  institu- 
tion. It  is  to  answer  a good  conscience,  in  performing 
what  he  regards  as  an  important  duty.  And  it  is  not  an 
unmeaning  ceremony;  but  a sign  or  seal  of  the  parent  s 
faith  in  the  requirements  and  promises  of  God's  gracious 
covenant , which  he  hath  given  to  believers  respecting  their 
children ; and  also , of  the  believer's  covenant  engage- 
ments, to  train  up  these  children  in  the  way  they  should 
go.  God’s  covenant  is  made  with  believers  only  ; but  it 
relates  to  the  salvation  of  their  children,  as  connected  with 
the  parent’s  faith  in  devoting  them  to  God,  and  his  fidelity 
in  training  them  up  in  obedience  to  God’s  commands. 
There  is,  therefore,  an  obvious  propriety  in  having  the 
token  of  the  covenant,  the  seal  of  the  believer’s  faith  in  its 
peculiar  privileges  and  blessings,  applied  to  his  children. 

Con. — If  these  children  are  not  in  covenant  with  God, 
and  can  claim  no  right  to  covenant  blessings,  while  they 
are  unbelievers,  how  does  the  covenant  apply  to  them  ? 

Min. — Special  provision  is  made  in  this  covenant  for 
their  conversion  and  salvation.. 


46 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

Con. — Does  God  respect  believers’  children  more  than 
he  does  the  children  of  unbelievers  ? 

Min. — The  children  of  believers  are  no  better  than  oth- 
ers ; and  God  regards  every  one  according  to  his  true  cha- 
racter. But  the  character  of  believers’  children  is  one 
thing ; and  the  means  which  God  hath  appointed  for  their 
conversion  and  salvation  is  another  ; and  between  these 
two  there  is  no  necessary  connexion.  None  are  saved  for 
any  worthiness  in  them,  or  in  those  who  are  the  means  of 
their  salvation.  But  it  is  the  purpose  of  God  to  perpetuate 
his  church  to  the  last  period  of  time,  and  to  do  this  by 
means  which  he  hath  appointed.  All  will  admit  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  position.  It  is  plain,  also,  that  the  cove- 
nant which  God  hath  made  with  his  people,  and  on  which 
his  church  is  established,  he  will  continue  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  It  is,  therefore,  called  an  u everlasting  cove- 
nant.” In  this  covenant  he  hath  made  provision  for  the 
perpetuity  of  his  church , with  all  its  distinguished  privile- 
ges and  blessings  ; and  he  hath  instituted  the  means  by 
which  it  shall  be  accomplished.  Among  these  means 
are,  the  faith  of  believing  parents , in  devoting  their  child- 
ren to  God , and  their  fidelity  in  training  them  up  in  obe- 
dience to  his  commands . 

Con. — It  is  plain  that  God  will  perpetuate  his  church  to 
the  end  of  time,  and  that  this  will  be  accomplished  by  the 
use  of  means.  The  preaching  of  the  word,  the  ordinan- 
ces of  the  gospel,  the  prayers  of  God’s  people,  are  among 
these  appointed  means.  But  how  does  it  appear  that  the 
faith  arid  fidelity  of  believing  parents,  in  devoting  their 
children  to  God,  and  in  training  them  up  for  his  service, 
are  appointed  as  means  for  the  salvation  of  such  child- 
ren, and  for  perpetuating  the  church  to  the  end  of  the 
world  ? 

Min. — It  appears  from  the  express  word  of  God  upon 
this  point : — u I know  Abraham,  that  he  will  command  his 
children  and  his  household  after  him  ; and  they  shall  keep 
the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment ; that  the 
Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken 
of  Aim.” (a)  The  fidelity  of  Abraham  is  expressed  in 
these  words  : “ He  will  command  his  children  and  house- 
hold after  him.”  The  meaning  is,  he  will  exercise  all  the 


a Gem  xviii.  19, 


Conversations  on  Baptism*  47 

Influence  and  authority  that  he  possesses,  to  train  them  up 
for  the  service  of  God.  The  effects  produced  by  these 
means  are  expressed  in  the  next  words  : u And  they  shall 
keep  the  way  of  the  Lord.”  This  they  could  never  do 
without  true  holiness  of  heart  and  life.  The  consequence, 
then,  of  Abraham’s  fidelity,  would  be  the  piety  of  his  child- 
ren and  household.  And  all  this  was  to  prepare  the  way 
for  God  to  fulfil  his  promise  to  Abraham,  viz.  that  he  would 
he  the  God  of  his  seed , as  well  as  his  God — expressed  in 
these  words  : u That  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham 
that  which  he  had  spoken  of  him.”  Thus,  by  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  and  his  fidelity  towards  his  children  and  house- 
hold, he  enjoyed  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise, 
that  the  Lord  would  be  a God  to  him , and  to  his  seed  af- 
ter him. 

Con. — Could  none  of  Abraham’s  children  have  the 
Lord  for  their  God,  in  a covenant  sense,  till  after  they  had 
Lecome  believers  ? 

Min. — They  could  not.  u Thou  shalt  keep  my  cove- 
nant,” says  God  to  Abraham,  u thou  and  thy  seed  after 
thee , in  their  generations.” (b)  They  must  all  keep  this 
covenant ; k e.  must  comply  with  the  conditions  or  terms 
of  it,  before  they  could  be  entitled  to  covenant  blessings ; 
and  this  they  could  not  do  without  the  spirit  of  holiness  5 as 
must  be  evident  from  the  remarks  that  have  been  made 
upon  this  point. 

Con. — Are  there  any  other  passages  that  establish  this 
sentiment  ? 

Min. — In  Psalm  ciii,  1 7, 18,  we  read — u The  mercy  of 
the  Lord  is  from  everlasting  to  everlasting  upon  them  that 
fear  him ; and  his  righteousness  unto  children’s  children  ; 
to  such  as  keep  his  covenant , and  to  those  that  remember 
his  commandments  to  do  them.”  The  mercy  of  the  Lord 
and  his  righteousness  can  mean  nothing  less  than  true  ho- 
liness. This  descends  to  children’s  children.  It  is  thus 
perpetuated  from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  or  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  time.  This  is  according  to  the 
tenor  of  God’s  covenant.  It  is  the  blessing  which  he  hath 
promised  to  such  as  keep  his  covenant , that  remember  his 
commandments  to  do  them.  Again,  Psalm  lxxviii,  5 — 7 : 

He  established  a testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appointed  a 

h Gen.  xvii;  9. 


48  Conversations  on  Baptism . 

law  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers  that  they 
should  make  them  known  to  their  children  ; that  the  gen- 
eration to  come  might  know  them,  even  the  children  that 
should  be  born ; who  should  arise  and  declare  them  to 
their  children;  that  they  might  set  their  hope  in  God , and 
not  forget  the  works  of  God,  but  keep  his  commandments 
This  testimony  or  law  which  God  established  in  Israel,  his 
church,  was  that  parents  should  give  religious  instruction 
to  their  children  ; and  that  this  should  be  continued  from 
generation  to  generation  : And  the  end  to  be  accomplish- 
ed by  these  means  was,  that  they  might  set  their  hope  in 
God,  and  keep  liis  commandments ; or  in  other  words, 
that  they  might  become  holy  in  heart  and  life.  These 
were  the  means  which  God  had  appointed  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  end.  Thus  true  religion  was  to  be  con- 
tinued from  generation  to  generation.  This  was  accord- 
ing to  an  established  law  of  divine  operation , under  the 
Jewish  dispensation  ; and  there  is  no  evidence  that  this 
law  has  ever  been  altered.  This  direction,  then,  does 
still  remain  a standing  law  in  the  church  of  God.  The 
following  passages  are  of  the  same  import : “ This  is  my 
covenant  with  them,  saith  the  Lord.  My  spirit,  that  is 
upon  thee,  and  my  words  which  I have  put  in  thy  mouth, 
shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of 
thy  seeS,,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed's  seed , saith  the 
Lord,  from  henceforth  and  forever.  ”(c)  Also — “ I will 
make  an  everlasting  covenant  with  them  ; and  their  seed 
shall  be  known  among  the  Gentiles,  and  their  offspring 
among  the  people.  All  that  see  them  shall  acknowledge 
them,  that  they  are  the  seed  which  the  Lord  hath  bless- 
ed”(d)  “ They  shall  be  my  people,  and  I will  be  their 
God.  And  I will  give  them  one  heart  and  one  way,  that 
they  may  fear  me  forever,  for  the  good  of  them , and  of 
their  children  after  them  ”(e)  “ Fear  not,  O Jacob,  my 

servant ; for  I will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed , and  my 
blessing  upon  thine  offspring . And  they  shall  spring  up 
as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  by  the  water  courses.  One 
shall  say,  I am  the  Lord’s,”  &c.(/)  “Mine  elect  shall 
long  enjoy  the  work  of  their  hands.  They  shall  not  labor 
in  vain,  nor  bring  forth  for  trouble ; for  they  are  the  seed 

c Isa.  lix,  21.  d Isa.  lxi,  8,  9,  e Jen  xxxii,  38,  39. 
f Isa.  xliv,  2 — 5. 


'Conversations  on  Baptism.  4 

. oj  the  blessed  of  the  Lord , and  their  offspring  with  them  (s' 
“I  have  been  young,”  says  the  Psalmist,  “and  now  am 
old  ; yet  have  I not  seen  the  righteous  forsaken,  nor  his 
seed  begging  bread.  He  is  ever  merciful,  and  lendeth 
and  his  seed  is  blessed.r,(k ) “ Train  up  a child  in  the 

way  he  should  go,”  says  the  wise  man,  “ and  when  he  is 
old,  he  will  not  depart  from  it.”(i)  “A  just  man  walketh 
in  his  integrity,  and  his  children  are  blessed  after  him.  ”(k' 
“ The  curse  of  the  Lord  is  in  the  house  of  the  wicked'- 
but  he  blesseth  the  habitation  of  the  just.”(Z)  pau]  refer' 
directly  to  this  doctrine,  when  speaking  to  Timothy  in 
these  words  : “ I call  to  remembrance  the  unfeigned  faith 
that  is  in  thee,  which  dwelt  first  in  thy  grandmother  Lois , 
and  in  thy  mother  Eunice , and  I am  persuaded  that  in  thee 
also.  (»)  In  support  of  this  doctrine  we  might  appeal 
to  facts.  Notwithstanding  the  great  unfaithfulness  ofthose 
who  professedly  devote  their  children  to  God  in  baptism 
such  as  would  seem  almost  to  exclude  them  from  a hope 
of  the  promised  blessing  ; yet  it  is  a notorious  fact,  that  a 
vast  proportion  of  all  that  are  converted , are  persons  who 
had  been  baptised  in  infancy.  Infant  baptism,  then  is 
not  an  unmeaning  or  useless  ceremony ; but  an  important 
institution  of  heaven,  designed,  together  with  its  corres- 
ponding  duties,  as  means  of  perpetuating  the  blessings  of 
salvation,  and  the  church  of  God,  from  generation  tofene- 
iation,  to  the  last  period  of  time.  ® 

Con.  I am  satisfied,  Sir,  with  your  remarks  upon  this 
point ; and 'have  only  to  request  that  I may  have  one  more 
conversation,  particularly  on  the  mode  of  baptism. 

Afm.— Will  you  call  to-morrow,  about  two  o’clock  > 
quiriesGndeaV°r  then  t0  ^ at  leisure,  to  attend  to  yeuren* 

t Jrov'Tv2?  23‘  \ v'  XXXV%25>  26'  *!**«*. 

rror.  xx,  7.  I Pro r.  m,  33.  m .24  Tim.  i,  5. 


£ 


CONVERSATION  VI. 

Respecting  the  mode  of  Christian  Baptism . 

Convert . — I have  called  once  more,  Sir,  in  compliance 
with  your  proposal,  to  enquire  particularly  respecting  the 
mode  of  baptism.  In  what  mode  do  you  consider  that 
baptism  should  be  administered  ? 

Minister . — I do  not  find  evidence  that  any  particular 
mode  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  this  ordinance.  Sprink- 
lings ox  pouring  water  on  a person,  is,  I think,  a proper 
and  scriptural  mode . 

Con. — It  is  often  said  that  sprinkling  is  not  baptism  ; 
that  the  Greek  word  which  is  render ed  baptise,  properly 
signifies  nothing  but  immersion. 

Min . — Volumes  have  been  written  to  show  the  mean- 
ing of  this  word.  Most  dictionaries  define  it  as  being  ap- 
plicable to  different  modes.  In  the  scriptures,  where  it  is 
not  rendered  baptises  it  is  generally,  if  not  always,  render- 
ed by  the  English  word  trash ; and  this  accords  with  the 
most  learned  criticisms  that  have  been  made  on  its  genu- 
ine meaning.  In  Ileb.  ix,  10,  we  read  of  divers  wash- 
ings— Greek,  divers  baptisms.  This  does  not  mean  di- 
vers immersions  ; but  refers  to  the  various  purifications 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  the  most  of  which  were  by  sprinkling. 
Some  of  these  baptisms,  or  sprinklings,  are  particularised 
in  the  13th  and  ISth  verses  of  this  chapter.  When  our 
Saviour  was  invited  to  dine  with  a Pharisee,  u the  Phari- 
see marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed,  (Greek,  had 
not  been  baptised),  before  dinner.’ 5 (a)  From  Mark 
we  learn,  that  this  baptism  was  only  the  washing  of  hands  : 
“ For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash 
their  hands  oft,  eat  mot— holding  the  tradition  of  the  eld- 
ers.” (6)  Here  we  are  taught,  that  to  wash  the  hands  was 
to  be  baptised ; or  to  baptise  the  person.  Mark  goes  on 
to  observe—^  And  when  they  come  from  the  markets,  ex- 
cept they  wash,”  (Greek,  be  baptised ),  “ they  eat  not. 
And  many  such  like  things  they  do,  as  the  washing” 
(Greek,  baptisms)  u of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  ves* 


a Luke  xi,  38, 


b Mark  vii5  3, 


Conversations  on  Baptism . <5.1 

sels,  and  tables.”  These  most  evidently  could  not  be  all 
immersions ; and  therefore  this  Greek  word,  baptizo , does 
not  signify  immersion  exclusively.  To  wash  was  to  cleanse 
or  purify,  which  was  often  done  by  sprinkling.  “ I will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean. ”(c) 
Paul  speaks  of  the  “ washing  of  regeneration ;”  which  is 
always  represented  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  some  kind 
of  affusion. 

Con . — Was  not  our  Saviour  baptised  by  immersion  ; 
and  is  not  this  a sufficient  reason  why  we  should  be  thus 
baptised,  if  we  profess  to  be  his  followers  ? 

Min . — It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  immersion  w as 
the  mode  in  which  our  Saviour  received  baptism.  It  is 
said,  indeed,  that  he  wras  baptised  in  Jordan.  So  he  di- 
rects the  blind  man, “ Go  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam.”(d) 
But  the  direction  was  only  that  he  should  wash  his  eyes. 
It  is  also  written,  that  “ when  he  was  baptised,  he  w ent 
up  straightway  out  of  the  water.”(e)  But “ going  up  out 
of  the  wrater,”  was  no  part  of  his  baptism.  This  took 
place  after  he  was.  baptised  ; and  in  what  mode  he  receiv- 
ed baptism  wre  are  not  informed.  The  Greek  w7ord  apo. 
here  rendered  “out  of,”  is  generally  translated  from.  It. 
is  rendered  from , in  tw7o  hundred  and  thirty-five  instances 
within  the  first  five  books  of  the  New-Testament ; and  it 
is  rendered  out  of  in  but  forty-tw^o  instances  wTithin  the 
same  limits.  Every  school-boy  in  Greek  knows  thaXfrom- 
is  its  most  common  and  appropriate  signification.  Had 
it  been  rendered  from , in  this  case,  I leave  you  to  judge 
how  much  evidence  this  passage  w7ould  have  afforded,  that 
immersion  was  the  mode  in  which  he  received  baptism. 
But  in  whatever  mode  our  Lord  was  baptised,  it  will  not 
determine  the  mode  of  our  baptism  ; because,  if  I am  able 
to  judge  correctly,  he  did  not  design,  in  this  particular,  to 
be  an  example  for  his  followers. 

Con . — Are  we  not,  Sir,  to  follow  our  Saviour’s  exam- 
ple ? 

Min. — Certainly  we  are,  in  every  thing  in  which  he  de- 
signed that  we  should  follow  him  ; but  not  in  every  thing 
that  he  did. 

Con. — True,  Christ  fasted  forty  days  ; he  wrought  ma- 

cEzek.  xxxvi,  25.  Nura.  viii,  7,  & xix,  18—21.  Lev*  xiv,  7. 
d John  ix5  7.  e Mat.  iii,  16, 


52  Conversations  on  Baptism . 

By  miracles;  but  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  imitate 
him  in  these  things.  But  should  we  not  follow  his  exam- 
ple so  far  as  we  are  capable  of  doing  as  he  did  ? 

Min. — Christ  had  no  worldly  possessions  ; he  had  no 
iixed  place  of  residence  ; he  engaged  in  no  worldly  em- 
ployments after  he  was  baptised ; he  received  no  pecunia- 
ry reward  for  his  services  ; he  led  a life  of  celibacy,  hav- 
ing no  wife  or  children.  In  all  these  respects,  we  have  a 
duty  to  perform  ; and  we  are  capable  of  doing  as  he  did. 
But  is  this  our  duty  ? 

Con. — It  cannot,  indeed,  be  the  duty  of  all  Christians  to 
do  all  these  things.  But  baptism  is  an  institution  of  heav- 
en ; and  I should  think  we  ought  to  follow  Christ’s  exam- 
ple in  complying  with  divine  institutions. 

Min. — Christ  was  circumcised  in  infancy  ; he  kept  the 
Jewish  passover  ; he  observed  the  seventh  day  Sabbath ; 
and  he  complied  with  all  the  rites  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
These  he  observed  as  divine  institutions.  But  did  he  de- 
sign, in  these  respects,  that  we  should  follow  his  example  ? 

Con. — These  were  Jewish  rites,  which  have  been  long 
since  abolished.  But  baptism  is  a Christian  ordinance; 
therefore  Christ,  I should  suppose,  must  be  our  example  in 
regard  to  his  baptism. 

Min. — Christ  could  not,  as  to  his  baptism,  have  been 
our  example  in  all  respects.  He  was  not  baptised  for  the 
same  purposes  that  we  are.  His  baptism  could  not  be  a 
token  of  the  remission  of  sins,  or  of  the  necessity  of  an 
internal  cleansing  from  sin ; for  he  had  no  sin  to  be  for- 
given or  washed  away.  He  was  not  baptised  till  he  was 
about  thirty  years  old,  though  he  had  always  been  a child 
of  God  ; but  he  did  not  design  that  we  should  delay  our 
baptism  till  that  age.  He  was  not  baptised  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity  ; but  he  hath  commanded  us  to  be  baptised 
in  that  name.  If  the  name  of  the  Trinity  be  not  called  in 
our  baptism,  the  ordinance  is  of  no  validity.  To  follow 
his  example  in  this  respect,  would  be  to  disobey  his  com- 
mand, and  to  nullify  this  ordinance.  He  was  not  baptised 
because  he  was  a believer.  In  short,  there  is  not  one 
particular  that  can  be  named,  in  which  it  is  our  duty, 
or  would  even  be  right  for  us,  to  be  baptised  as  Christ 
was,  the  mode  of  applying  water  excepted.  Would  it  not 
seem,  from  these  considerations,  that  the  baptism  of  our 
Saviour  was  not  designed  to  be  an  example  for  his  follow- 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

^rs  ? Had  this  been  the  design  of  his  baptism,  would  he 
have  waited  till  “ all  the  people  had  been  baptised  ?”  (f) 
Would  he  have  commanded  his  disciples  to  be  baptised  in 
a different  manner  from  what  he  was  ? Would  he  have  so 
ordered  the  case,  that  it  would  not  have  been  right  for  them 
to  be  baptised  as  he  was,  in  any  one  particular,  except  in 
the  mode  of  applying  water  ; so  that  to  follow  his  exam- 
ple fully,  would  be  to  disobey  his  command,  and  to  render 
this  ordinance  a nullity  ? 

C on.— — What,  them  could  be  the  design  of  our  Saviour's 
baptism  ? 

Min,— It  Was  the  rite  by  which  he  was  visibly  induct- 
ed into  his  official  work , as  the  Messiah.  In  this  char- 
acter he  was  u an  high  priest  over  the  house  of  God  J ’(g) 
He  entered  upon  this  work  in  a regular  manner.  “ No 
man  taketh  this  honor  upon  himself,  but  he  that  is  call- 
ed of  God,  as  was  Aaron  ; So  also , Christ  glorified,  not 
himself  \ to  he  made  an  high  priest  ”{h)  Now,  Aaron 
was  called  of  God,  or  by  God’s  appointment,  into 
the  priesthood,  by  the  rite  of  washing  or  baptism. (i) 
Christ,  also,  was  inducted  into  his  office  by  this  rite. 
This  reason  he  gives  why  he  should  be  baptised. 
u Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.”(&) 
Hence  his  baptism  was  deferred  till  he  was  about  thirty 
years  of  a ge.(l)  Before  his  baptism,  Christ  lived  in  a 
private  station  ; but  “from  that  time,  he  began  to 
preach.' ”(m)-  That  this  was  the  time  when  he  entered 
upon  his  official  wrork,  cannot  admit  of  a question.  Ii 
his  baptism  was  not  the  inaugural  rite,  he  entered  upon 
this  work,  or  was  inducted  into  it,  without  any  order  or 
formality  whatever . But  if  this  were  the  design  of  our 
Saviour’s  baptism,  it  was  not  to  be  our  example. 

Con. — How  can  we  know,  Sir,  in  what  respects  we  are 
to  follow  Christ,  if  there  are  so  many  particulars  in  which 
we  are  not  to  follow  him  ? 

Min.— We  must  always  possess  the  spirit  of  Christ, 

, and  do  as  he  did,  so  far  as  our  condition  and  circimstances 

f Luke  iii,  21.  k Mat.  iii,  15. 

g Heb.  x,  2l,and>vii;  11.  I Luke  iii,  23vcompared  with 
h Heb.  v,  4,-5.  Nurh.  iv,  3. 

i Lev.  m Mat.  iv.  17.. 

E.2 


54 


Conversations  on  Baptism, 

me  like  his . As  we  do  not  live  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation, we  are  not  to  observe  the  ritual  law.  As  we  do 
not  sustain  the  same  offices  that  Christ  did,  we  are  not  to 
perform  the  duties  which  those  offices  require.  Whatever 
Christ  did,  or  would  have  done,  in  our  circumstances  ; 
whatever  his  spirit  would  lead  us  to  do ; or,  in  other 
words,  so  far  as  our  condition  is  similar  to  his,  his  example 
is  to  be  taken  as  a perfect  rule  of  conduct. 

Con.— John  baptised  in  Enon,  because  there  was  much 
water  there,  (w)  Could  he  need  much  water  for  any  thing 
but  immersion  ? 

Min . — The  words  here  rendered  much  water , are  in  the 
Greek  both  plural  ; literally  many  waters , which  must  be 
many  places  of  water.  These  words  are  rendered  many 
waters  in  every  other  place  where  they  occur  in  the  New- 
Testament. (o)  But  many  places  of  water  could  not  be 
needed  for  one  man  to  administer  baptism,  whatever  might 
be  the  mode  of  administration.  They  might,  however, 
be  needed  for  the  convenience  of  the  vast  multitudes  that 
followed  John,  and  for  the  beasts  which  they  would  natu- 
rally have  with  them. 

Con.— But  do  you  not  believe,  Sir,  that  John  immersed 
all  whom  he  baptised  ? 

Min.— I have  not  sufficient  evidence  that  he  immersed 
any  of  them.  We  always  read  that  he  baptised  with  water, 
whether  it  were  in  Jordan,  in  Enon,  or  in  the  wilderness  ; 
but  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  he  immersed  with  water. 

Con. — It  is  said  that  the  Greek  word  translated  with , in 
these  places,  ought  to  have  been  rendered  in. 

Min,— This  word  i3  sometimes  rendered  in,  and  some- 
times with , in  the  New-Testament ; and  which  is  the  most 
proper  in  any  particular  case,  must  depend  on  the  circum- 
stances* It  is  rendered  with  in  the  following  passages, 
where  in  would  be  evidently  absurd.  “ They  that  take 
the  sword,  shall  perish  with  the  sword.” (p)  u He  shall 
baptise  you  with  the  Holy  Gho$t.”{q) 

Con. — Are  there  any  circumstances  which  show  that 
this  word  ought  to  be  translated  with,  rather  than  in,  when 
relating  to  John’s  baptism  ? 

Min.-r- All  those  circumstances  which  render  it  improb-> 

n John  iii,  23.  p Mat.  xxvi,  52v 

or.  Key.  if  15,  xiv,  2,  xji 1,  & xix  6.  q Mat.  iii,  1 K 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

able  that  John  immersed  his  disciples,  illustrate  the  propri- 
ety of  this  translation. 

Con. — What  circumstances  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Min. — u All  Judea,  and  all  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  re- 
gion round  about  Jordan,”  (r)  were  baptised  by  John  du- 
ring his  ministry,  which  must  have  been  short  of  two 
years  ; and  it  seems  incredible  that  he  could  have  immers- 
ed so  great  a multitude  in  so  short  a time.  They  were  all 
here  in  the  open  country ; and  it  does  not  seem  probable 
that  they  either  changed  their  apparel  in  this  place,  or  that 
they  were  immersed  without  changing  it.  When  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  fell  on  Peter’s  hearers,  in  the  house  of  Cornelius, 
it  reminded  him  of  John’s  baptism.  u Then  remembered 
I the  word  of  John,  how  he  said — I indeed  baptise  you 
with  water ; but  ye  shall  be  baptised  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.”(s)  The  propriety  of  rendering  the  word  with 
rather  than  in  water,  in  this  place,  is  obvious  from  the  re- 
semblance which  is  manifestly  designed  to  be  marked  be- 
tween baptising  with  water  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  word,  in  both  cases,  is  the  same  in  Greek,  and  obvi- 
ously it  ought  to  be  the  same  in  English.  But  to  render 
it, “ He  shall  baptise  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost”  would  be 
absurd.  Therefore,  “I  baptise  you  in  water”  would  not 
be  so  consistent  with  unity  and  propriety  in  this  place,  as 
the  words  now  stand  in  our  English  bibles.  But  whatever 
might  have  been  the  mode  in  which  John  baptised,  it  can 
prove  nothing  as  to  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  because 
these  are  different  institutions. 

Con. — How  does  it  appear  that  the  baptism  of  John  is 
not  the  Christian  ordinance  ? 

Min. — In  the  first  place,  John  did  not  baptise  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity.  This,  I believe,  is  universally  ac- 
knowledged. But  if  this  name  be  not  called,  Christian 
baptism  is  of  no  validity  ; it  cannot  be  the  ordinance 
which  our  Saviour  appointed.  2d.  John’s  baptism  began 
and  ended  before  Christian  baptism  was  instituted ; before 
that  commission  was  given  by  our  Saviour,  which  confers 
upon  his  ministers  all  the  authority  which  they  have  to  ad- 
minister this  ordinance,  recorded  in  Mat.  xxviii,  20.  3d. 

There  is  a marked  distinction  throughout  the  New-Testa- 
menfc,  between  the  ministry,  disciples  and  baptism  of  Jobrx 

r Mat.  Ui.  5,  6. 


s Actsii,  16. 


56  Conversations  on  Baptism* 

and  those  of  our  Saviour  ; as  you  may  see  in  the  follow- 
ing passages  : — Luke  v,  2,  3,  and  xi,  1.  Mat.  xi,  1,  2* 
and  xxi,  25.  Luke  vii,  29.  Acts  xviii,  25,  26,  and  xix, 
2,  5.  4th.  Numbers,  who  had  been  baptised  by  John, 
were  afterwards  baptised  by  the  apostles,  (t) 

Con. — What  then  was  the  design  of  John’s  baptism  ? 

Min. — It  was  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  coming  of 
Christ  ‘(u)  to  prepare  the  Jews  to  receive  him  ;(d)  and  to 
introduce  him  into  his  sacred  office  : “ That  he  should  he 
?nade  manifest  unto  Israel , (says  John);  therefore  am 
i come  baptising  with  water. ”(w?)  Our  Saviour  was 
manifested  to  Israel  by  John,  at  the  time  when  John  bap* 
tised  him  ; when  he  proclaimed  in  the  audience  of  the 
people — “ This  is  he  of  whom  I spake — He  that  cometh 
after  me  is  preferred  before  me.”  w He  that  sent  me  to 
baptise  with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me— Upon  whom 
thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  like  a dove,  and  abi- 
ding upon  him,  the  same  is  he  that  baptiseth  with  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost.  And  I saw  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son 
of  God.”(.r)  Soon  after  this  event,  the  ministration  of 
John  closed  ; and  with  it  ended  his  baptism. 

Con. — If  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism  is  not  to  be  de- 
termined from  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo ; nor  from 
the  baptism  of  our  Saviour ; nor  from  John’s  baptism  ; 
where  shall  we  go  for  evidence  to  teach  us  our  duty  in  this 
respect  ? 

Min. — It  may  be  derived  from  the  signification  of  this 
ordinance , and  from  the  practice  of  the  apostles , under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  after  receiving  and  while  acting  un- 
der that  grand  commission , that  gives  gospel  ministers  all 
the  authority  they  have  to  administer  baptism  ; recorded 
in  Mat.  xxviii,  19,  20. 

Con. — What  do  we  learn  from  the  signification  of  bap- 
tism, in  regard  to  the  mode  of  applying  water,  in  this  or- 
dinance ? 

Min. — Baptism  represents  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  renewing  and  sanctifying  the  hearts  of  men.  This  work 
is  therefore  called  baptism- — baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and 
'baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  “ By  one  spirit  we  are  all 

t Acts  xix,  1-12,  and  Mat.  iii,  15.  compared  with  Acts  ii,  41, 
and  xxi,  20.  u John  i,  23.  Luke  vii.  27* 

t?  Mat.  iii,  2-12*  w John  i,  31.  x John  i,  30,  33,  34. 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 67 

baptised  into  one  body,”  &c .(y)  “ He  shall  baptise  you 

with  the  Holy  Ghost. ”(2;)  The  name  of  the  sign  is  here 
used  to  denote  the  thing  signified,,  a figure  which  i*  very 
common  among  all  writers.  This  work  of  the  Spirit  is 
always  represented  by  some  kind  of  affusion,  as  pouring , 
sprinklings  shedding  forth,  and  coming  down  like  rain ; as 
in  the  following  passages  : “ I will  pour  my  Spirit  upon 
thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring.  ”(a)^- 
u Then  will  I sprinkle  clear  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean.  A new  heart  will  I give  you.”(&)  “ Renew- 

ing of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  was  shed  on  us  abundant- 
ly. ”(c)  u The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  that  heard  the 
word.”(d)  uHe  shall  come  down  like  rain  upon  the 
mown  grass.”(e)  As  water  baptism  is  the  external  sign 
of  this  spiritual  work,  and  is  designed  to  represent  it ; 
must  not  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  shedding  forth  water, 
on  the  subject,  in  this  ordinance,  be  a peculiarly  proper 
and  scriptural  mode  of  baptism  ? Does  it  not  answer  most 
Hilly  to  the  design  and  signification  of  this  ordinance  ? 

Con . — So  far  as  the  mode  of  baptism  can  be  determin- 
ed from  the  design  and  signification  of  it,  the  argument 
must  be  altogether  in  favor  of  affusion.  But  the  practice 
of  the  apostles  will  doubtless  give  the  most  satisfying  evi- 
dence. 

Min. — We  will  examine,  if  you  please,  the  several  ca- 
ses in  which  baptisms  are  recorded  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. They  are  ten  in  number,  and  are  all  included 
in  the  acts  of  the  apostles.  The  first  case  is  that  of  three 
thousand,  who  were  baptised  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.(jf)  Immediately  before  they  received  this  or- 
dinance, they  had  been  baptised  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It 
is  said  He  was  “ poured  out,”  and  u shed  forth”  upon 
them.(g)  They  were  then  baptised  with  water,  as  an  ex- 
ternal sign  of  this  spiritual  work.  How  suitable  it  would 
seem  that  water  should  be  poured  out,  or  shed  forth  upon 
them,  in  this  ordinance,  as  the  Spirit  had  been,  which  their 
baptism  was  to  represent?  That  affusion,  and  not  immer- 
sion, was  the  mode  in  which  they  were  baptised,  appears 
evident  from  several  considerations.  It  is  hardly  credible, 

y 1st  Cor.  xii,  13.  z Mat.  iii,  11.  a Isa.  xliv,  3. 

b Ez.  xxxvi,  25,  26.  c Titus  iii,  5,  6.  d Acts  x,  44. 

e Psalm  Ixxii,  6.  /Actsii,  41.  g.  Ib.it,  17,18, 33. 


58 


Conversations  on  Baptism, 

that  in  half  a day,*  three  thousand  persons  could  have 
been  immersed  by  the  apostles  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  conceive  where  places  for  so  many  immersions 
could  have  been  found  within  the  walls  of  that  city.  They 
had  made  no  preparation  for  being  baptised  ; and  it  is  not 
probable,  either  that  they  had  all  changes  of  apparel  with 
them,  or  that  they  would  have  been  immersed  without 
such  change.  There  is  no  intimation  of  any  circumstance 
whatever,  that  would  lead  us  toj  suppose  they  were  bapti- 
sed by  immersion.  Hence,  I Conclude,  that  affusion  in 
some  form,  was  the  mode  in  which  they  received  this  ordi- 
nance. 

Con. — Will  you  proceed,  Sir,  to  remark  on  some  of  the 

other  cases  ? 

Min. — The  next  case  in  order  is  that  of  Simon  Magus, 
recorded  in  Acts  viii,  13.  But  there  are  no  circumstan- 
ces related,  which  afford  any  evidence  as  to  the  mode  in 
w hich  he  w7as  baptised.  The  same  is  true  of  others,  whose 
baptism  is  recorded  in  the  12th  verse  ; of  many  Corinthi- 
ans, whose  baptism  is  noticed  in  xviii,  8 ; and  of  twelve, 
who  were  baptised  by  Paul,  recorded  in  xix,  5.  There 
remain  five  other  instances,  in  which  circumstances  are 
related,  that  may  afford  evidence  as  to  the  mode  of  their 
baptism,  viz.  that  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  ; of  Paul ; of 
Cornelius  and  others  ; of  Lydia  and  her  household  ; and 
of  the  jailor  and  his  household. 

Con. — -Will  you  remark,  Sir,  on  the  case  of  the  Ethio- 
pian eunuch  ? 

Min. — His  baptism  is  recorded  in  Acts  viii,  38,  39. 
u He  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still ; and  they  went 
down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  ; and 
he  baptised  him.  And  when  they  had  come  up  out  of  the 
water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,  that  the 
eunuch  saw  him  no  more  ; and  he  went  on  his  way  rejoic- 
ing.”  All  the  circumstances  of  this  case  are  related  just 
as  they  would  be,  were  the  eunuch  baptised  by  affusion, 
except  the  words  into  and  out  of.  It  was  most  natural  and 
convenient,  and  it  was  probably  necessary  for  them  both, 
to  go  down  to  the  water,  whatever  was  to  be  the  mode  of 
baptising.  If  there  be  any  evidence,  then,  favoring  im~ 

* All  that  took  place  before  their  baptism,  would  seem  i© 
have  occupied  as  much  as  one  half  of  the  day. 


59 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

inersion  rather  than  affusion,  it  must  be  taken  wholly  from 
the  words  into  and  out  of.  But  these  words  do  not  ex- 
press the  act  of  baptizing,  or  any  part  of  it.  They  went 
down  both  into  the  water.  After  that  Philip  baptised  him. 
After  he  was  baptised,  they  came  up  both  out  of  the  wa- 
ter. Now,  in  what  mode  was  this  baptism  administered  ? 
It  is  not  even  so  much  as  intimated  in  this  description.  I 
will  here  state  a fact  which  recently  took  place.  Four 
persons  were  baptised  in  a stream  of  water.  In  two  of 
these  cases,  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  the 
minister  and  the  candidates,  and  he  baptised  them  by  im- 
mersion. After  their  baptism  they  both  came  up  out  of 
the  water.  In  the  two  other  instances,  they  went  down 
both  into  the  water,  both  the  minister  and  the  candidates, 
and  he  baptised  them  by  taking  water  into  his  hands  and 
pouring  it  upon  their  heads ; one  of  the  candidates  receiv- 
ing baptism  while  standing  upright  in  the  water,  and  the 
other  while  kneeling  upon  a board  in  the  stream.  After 
they  were  baptised,  they  both  came  up  out  of  the  water. 
Now,  in  which  of  these  ways  was  the  eunuch  baptised  ? Do 
the  circumstances  related  favor  one  of  these  modes  any 
more  than  they  do  the  other  ? There  are  some  circumstan- 
ces which  render  it  probable  that  he  was  not  immersed.  It 
is  not  very  probable  that  the  first  place  of  water  they  should 
come  to  on  a journey,  would  be  a convenient  place  for 
immersion.  As  all  the  evidence  that  can  favor  immer- 
sion is  derived  from  the  words  into  and  out  of  it  may  be 
important  here  to  remark,  that  the  Greek  word  eis , here 
rendered  into , is  often  translated  to.  It  is  rendered  to  in 
one  hundred  and  eighty-eight  instances  within  the  first  five 
books  of  the  New-Testament ; and  it  is  rendered  into  in 
three  hundred  and  eighty-eight  instances  within  the  same 
limits.  In  this  very  chapter,  eis  is  rendered  to  and  unto 
six  times,  and  into  but  once.  In  the  following  passages 
eis  most  evidently  does  not  mean  into.  u They  ran  both 
together ; and  that  other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter,  and 
came  first  (eis)  to  the  sepulchre.  And  he,  stooping  down, 
and  looking  in,  saw  the  linen  clothes  lying ; yet  went  he 
not  in.'\h)  Christ  directs  Peter,  “ Go  thou  (tis)  to  the 
sea,  and  cast  an  hook,  and  take  up  the  fish  that  first 
cometh  up.”(i)  The  Greek  word  ek , translated  out  of  is 

h John  xx,  4,  5. 


i Mat.  xviij  27. 


60  Conversations  on  Baptism . 

most  frequently  rendered  from.  It  is  rendered/rom  in  one 
hundred  and  two  instances  within  the  first  five  books 
of  the  New-Testament ; and  it  is  rendered  out  of 
in  but  seventy-seven  instances,  within  the  same  limits.* 
Had  these  words  been  translated  to  and  from  in  the 
passage  we  are  now  considering,  so  that  the  reading  would 
have  been,  They  went  down  both  to  the  water,  and  when 
they  had  come  up  from  the  water,”  there  would  have  been 
no  particular  evidence  in  favor  of  immersion.  Another  re- 
mark may  here  be  worthy  of  notice.  Philip  was  at  this  time 
.expounding  to  the  eunuch  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah  Jiii,  7,  8, 
describing  the  character  and  sufferings  of  Christ,  with  the 
privileges  and  blessings  of  the  gospel  through  his  ato- 
ning blood.  While  dwelling  on  this  subject,  u as  they 
went  on  their  way,  they  came  to  a certain  water  ; and  the 
eunuch  said — See,  here  is  water  ; what  doth  hinder  me  to 
be  baptised  ?”  How  strange  that  the  eunuch  should  have 
here  interrupted  Philip,  endeavouring  to  turn  off  his 
attention  from  the  subject  of  this  prophecy,  by  in- 
quiring why  he  might  not  be  baptised ! He  was  mam 
ifestly  ignorant  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  when  Philip 
began  this  exposition  ; for  he  did  not  know  whether  the 
prophet,  in  this  passage,  was  u speaking  of  himself  or  of 
some  other  man.”  How  deeply  he  must  have  been  interr 
ested  in  the  instruction,  which  Philip  gave  him,  while  ex- 
plaining this  prophecy,  and  applying  it  to  Christ,  with  the 

The  words  here  translated  into  and  out  of  not  only  may, 
but  it  is  believed,  actually  should  be  translated  to  and  from,  in 
this  passage  which  records  the  eunuch’s  baptism.  Where  the  en- 
trance of  a body  into  a place,  or  the  passage  of  a body  out  of  a 
place,  is  certainly  intended  to  be  expressed  in  the  original  of 
the  New-Testament,  two  particles  or  prepositions,  that  may 
signify  to  or  from. , are  uniformly  employed  ; one  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  word  denoting  the  place ; the  other  in  the 
composition  of  the  word  expressing  the  action.”  On  the  oth- 
er hand,  when  the  passage  of  a body  to  a place,  or  the  pas- 
sage of  a body  from  a place,  is  only  intended,  but  one  parti- 
cle, signifying  to  or  from,  is  used.  In  this  passage,  relating  to 
the  eunuch’s  baptism,  but  one  particle  or  preposition  is  used; 
therefore,  the  words  should  have  been  rendered  to  and  from , 
rather  than  into  and  out  of — Rev . John  Brown's  Discourses  on 
Baptism,  p.  18. 

Mr.  Brown  has  fully  illustrated  the  correctness  of  the  rule 
Ijere  laid  down. 


Conversations  on  Baptism,  C l 

privileges  and  blessings  of  the  Christian  dispensation  ! How 
unaccountable,  then,  that  he  should  have  broke  in  upon 
Philip,  by  enquiring  why  he  might  not  be  baptised,  unless 
baptism  had  been  a subject  of  their  previous  conversation  t 
Is  there  any  thing  in  this  prophecy  that  would  have 
led  to  this  subject  ? A few  verses  preceding  that  which 
the  eunuch  was  reading,  in  considering  the  same  subject, 
the  prophet  observes,  in  speaking  of  Christ — “ So  shall 
he  sprinkle  many  nations.’ 5 (ft)  What  was  his  meaning  in 
these  words  ? It  must  relate  to  something  that  was  to  take 
place  under  the  Christian  dispensation ; for  the  whole  pro- 
phecy is  a description  of  the  Saviour’s  character  and  suf- 
ferings, with  the  events  that  were  to  succeed  them.  Be- 
sides, no  gospel  blessings  were  to  extend  to  u many  na« 
lions,”  till  after  the  Christian  dispensation  was  set  up. 
Now,  what  is  there  existing  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, to  which  this  prophecy  could  relate  ? It  must  be  ei- 
ther the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  renewing  the  heart , or  the 
external  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism . In  the  former 
case  it  denotes  spiritual  baptism  ; and  since  baptism  with 
water  is  to  represent  this  work,  it  is  an  obvious  conclusion 
that  sprinkling  is  a proper  mode  in  which  it  is  to  be  ap- 
plied. But  if  this  be  a direct  prophecy  of  the  ordinance 
of  Christian  baptism,  as  I consider  we  are  fairly  warrant- 
ed to  believe,  then  we  are  here  taught  directly  that  sprink- 
ling is  Christian  baptism . By  taking  this  construction  of 
the  passage,  we  see  an  evident  propriety  in  the  eunuch’s 
question  to  Philip,  If  Philip,  in  expounding  this  prophe- 
cy, gave  the  eunuch  to  understand,  that  in  consequence  of 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  a new  dispensation  of 
the  gospel  was  to  be  set  up  ; that  gospel  privileges  and 
blessings  were  then  to  be  extended  to  many  nations ; that 
believers  of  all  nations  were  to  enjoy  them,  and  that  bap- 
tism with  water  was  to  be  the  visible  token  of  their  inter- 
est in  these  blessings,  what  would  have  been  more  natural 
than  for  the  eunuch  to  enquire,  at  the  first  sight  of  water, 
(his  heart  glowing  with  love  to  Christ,  and  exulting  in 
view  of  the  privileges  and  blessings  which  Philip  was  de- 
scribing)— “ See,  here  is  water ; what  doth  hinder  me  to 
be  baptised  ?”  Does  Philip  then  ask  whether  he  understood 
the  nature  and  design  of  baptism  ? Nothing  of  this ; he 


ft  Isa.  lii,  15. 

F 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 


had  probably  explained  to  him  this  subject  before.  The 
only  question  now  was,  whether  the  eunuch  wa?  a true 
believer  On  professing  this  he  was  baptised,  and  bapti- 
S must  we  not  suppose,  in  a mode  that  corresponded 

l^iave1  gcnerahy  supposed  that  the  eunuch  was 
•mmersed  ; but  the  evidence,  I find,  will  not  bear  exami- 
nation. Will  you  now  proceed.  Sir,  to  some  of  the  othei 

CEl  The  next  case  is  that  of  the  apostle  Paul.  “ A- 

nanias  entered  into  the  house,  and  putting  his  hands  on 
him  said-Brother  Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  ap- 
peared unto  thee  in  the  way  as  thou  earnest  hath  sent  ^ 
hither  that  thou  shouldest  receive  thy  sight.  And  there 
fef£ m his  eyes  as  it.  had  been  Kd»  ; andj he  ~ 
forthwith  and  was  baptised  ; and  when  > «e  . 

meat  he  was  strengthened  ”{i)  Laid  was  m the  house  ot 
Judas  on  his  wav  from  Damascus  to  Jerusalem.  He  bait 
beerTthree  days  without  food  whi^hfim  shock  he  ie- 
cexved,  andA^agi^ion^u  is  , circurostan- 

some  stream  or  fountain  of 

waterTor  the  purpose  of  immersion?  Or  therea^  p^-  # 
bability  that  he  was  immersed  in  this  house  'h P 
states  that  - he  arose  and  was  hapt^d  Jb  Bank 

.lpolares  in  giving  an  account  ot  his  baptism,  mai  a. 
SJS23 Lto  arise, for  the  1 

S2/SS  aw^S£”^  ' He  was  evidently 

baptised  *.  ^a/down 

sion  or  sprinkling-  Immediately  a he’received  meat 

and  ” n*The  whole  took  place,  evidently, 

?n  the  room there  Ananias  found  him.  The  next  case  is 
m the  room  wnore  , hoi(L  » When  she  was  bapti- 

have  W I - JjJ 

? foithbil  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house  and  abide 
there  ”<1)  The  phrase  “ come  into  my  house,”  woul  sesa 

& ytatrirewas  baptised  near  the  door,  rfnchwould 

mobablv  not  he  an  immersion.  ,„*ien 

F°Cen  L We  read  that  Lydia  was  by  the  river  side,  whea 

i Aeti  ix,  17.  k Acts  xxii,  16,  l Acts  xvi,  15. 


63 


Conversations  on  Baptism , 

Paul  preached  to  her,  and  the  Lord  opened  her  heart.  Does 
not  this  afford  evidence  that  she  was  immersed  in  this 
river  ? 

Min. — This  place  was,  doubtless,  a proseucha  or  house 
for  prayer,  as  such  houses  were  common  among  the  Jews, 
and  were  usually  erected  in  some  retired  place.  Certain 
women  were  accustomed  to  resort  here  for  prayer.  This 
building,  however,  was  not  erected  by  the  river  side  ; nor 
did  Lydia  come  here  at  this  time  for  the  convenience  of 
baptising,  or  with  the  remotest  reference  to  this  ordinance. 
This  must  be  evident,  when  we  consider  that  Paul  was  the 
first  person  that  ever  preached  the  gospel  in  this  city,  un- 
der the  Christian  dispensation  ; that  this  was  the  first  time 
he  came  there  ; that  this  discourse  was  soon  after  he  arri- 
ved ; that  Lydia  was  probably  the  first  Christian  convert, 
and  the  first  person  in  the  'city  that  ever  received  Christian 
baptism  ; and  that  she  could  have  had  no  thought  of  being 
baptised,  when  she  went  to  this  prayer-meeting. 

Con. — In  this  chapter  we  have  an  account  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  jailor  and  his  household.  Will  you  express 
your  views,  Sir,  in  regard  to  this  case  ? 

Min.— The  account  is  doubtless  familiar  to  you.  The 
leading  facts  you  will  remember  are  these.  Paul  and  Si- 
las were  thrust  by  the  jailor  into  the  inner  prison,  a place 
for  the  worst  of  criminals.  From  this  place  the  jailor 
brought  them  out,  i.e.  into  the  outer  prison,  a more  decent 
and  comfortable  apartment.  Here  Paul  and  Silas  preach- 
ed to  him ; the  jailor  believed  ; he  washed  their  stripes, 
and  was  baptised,  he  and  all  his  straightway.  After  this 
the  jailor  u brought  them  into  his  house,”  i.e.  into  that  a- 
partment  of  the  building  which  the  jailor  and  his  family 
occupied,  and  “ sat  meat  before  them.”  All  this  was 
done  u in  the  same  hour  of  the  night,”  and  it  was  u about 
midnight.”  Now,  in  what  mode  was  this  baptism  admin- 
istered ? Were  they  all  immersed  here  in  the  outer  prison  ? 
Is  it  probable  that  there  was  here  any  place  for  immersion  ? 
Or  can  we  suppose  that  they  went  out  to  some  stream  or 
fountain  for  this  purpose  ? There  is  no  intimation  of  this. 
Philippi  was  a great  city.  Had  they  gone  out  at  midnight, 
they  would  have  been  apprehended  by  the  watchmen.  It 
would  have  been  a violation  of  his  trust  and  duty  for  the 
jailor  to  have  suffered  the  prisoners  to  go  out,  and  Paul 
and  Silas  could  not  have  lawfully  countenanced  this.  They 


64 


Conversations  on  Baptism. 

refused  to  go  out  the  next  day,  till  the  magistrates  should 
come  and  fetch  them  out.  Well  then  may  we  believe  that 
they  did  not  leave  the  j ail  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  bap- 
tism ; and  it  seems  hardly  credible  that  they  were  immersed 
within  the  walls  of  the  prison.  The  conclusion  is,  that 
immersion  is  not  the  mode  in  which  they  were  baptised. 
Of  course,  it  was  performed  by  affusion. 

Con.-~ The  case  of  those  has  not  been  noticed,  who 
were  baptised  in  the  house  of  Cornelius. 

Min. — -This  case  is  recorded  in  Acts  x,  44—47.  While 
Peter  was  preaching  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  u The 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  that  heard  the  word  ; and  they 
of  the  circumcision  were  astonished,  as  many  as  came 
with  Peter,  because  that  on  the  Gentiles  was  poured  out 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then  answered  Peter — Can 
any  man  forbid  water , that  these  shall  not  he  bapti- 
sed, who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?” 
These  persons  had  just  been  baptised  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
that  u fell  on  them;”  that  was  u poured  out ” upon  them. 
This  is  the  reason  which  Peter  gives  why  they  should  be 
baptised . Their  baptism  was  to  represent  this  spiritual 
work.  How  suitable  it  must  be  that  water  should  be 
poured  upon  them  to  represent  that  work  of  the  Spirit 
which  they  had  just  received  I How  unsuitable  would  im- 
mersion be  to  represent  this  work!  That  they  were  not 
baptised  by  immersion,  appears  highly  probable  from  the 
fact  that  they  were  all  baptised  in  the  house  of  Cornelius, 
where  it  is  not  probable  there  was  any  place  for  immer- 
sion. Numbers  of  them  were  from  home.  They  came 
with  no  expectation  of  being  baptised.  It  is  not  very 
probable  they  had  any  change  of  apparel  with  them,  or 
that  they  were  immersed  without  such  change.  “ Who,” 
says  Peter,  u can  forbid  water,  that  these  shall  not  be  bap- 
tised ?”  Does  not  this  imply  that  they  were  to  be  baptised 
with  water,  as  John  baptised  his  disciples  ; or  that  water 
was  to  be  applied  to  the  subjects  in  this  ordinance,  and  not 
the  subjects  to  the  water ; and  if  so,  affusion  in  some  form 
was  the  mode  in  which  they  were  baptised. 

I have  now  remarked  on  all  the  instances  on  record,  in 
which  baptism  was  administered  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, and  have  exhibited  concisely  my  view  of  the 
evidence  to  show  that  sprinkling  or  affusion  is  a proper 


Conversations  on  Baptism . €6 

scriptural  mode  of  baptism . From  the  view  we  have  ta- 
ken of  these  several  cases,  the  following  conclusions  arc 
manifest 

1st.  The  mode  of  administering  baptism  is  no  where  de- 
scribed in  any  part  of  the  New-Testament.  We  are  no 
where  informed  how  any  person  was  baptised . The  evi- 
dence, therefore,  from  apostolic  example,  must  be  taken, 
entirely,  from  the  circumstances,  as  they  are  related  in 
each  case.  Of  course,  it  can  afford  only  a greater  or  less 
degree  of  probability. 

2d.  These  accounts  are  not  such  as  we  should  expect  to 
have  received,  had  immersion  been  the  mode  in  which  bap- 
tism was  generally  practised ; especially  in  regard  to  the 
following  particulars  : — 1st.  There  is  no  intimation  of  any 
changing  of  apparel.  Nothing  is  said  in  reference  to  ap- 
parel, as  connected  with  baptism,  in  any  part  of  the  New- 
Testament.  2d.  There  is  no  account  of  leaving  the  place 
where  the  subjects  believed  or  heard  the  word.  Wherev - 

er  they  might-  be , there  they  were  baptised ; whether  it 
were  in  a populous  city,  in  a private  house,  on  a journey, 
or  in  a jail ; and  it  is  hardly  credible  that  in  all  these  places 
there  was  water  sufficient  for  immersion.  3d.  Baptism 
was  never  delayed  at  all  for  the  want  of  conveniences  for 
baptising ; though  it  is  plain,  from  examining  these  several 
cases,  that  in  no  instance , could  the  person  have  expected 
to  be  baptised , when  he  came  to  the  place  where  he  receiv- 
ed this  ordinance,  and  therefore  could  have  made  no  pre- 
vious preparation  for  it.  4th.  In  six  of  these  instances, 
various  circumstances  are  related  which  took  place  on  the 
occasion  of  baptising  *,  and  in  three  or  four  of  these  cases 
the  circumstances  are  numerous  and  particular  ; but  in  no 
instance , (unless  we  except  that  of  the  eunuch,  and  per- 
haps of  Lydia  and  her  household),  do  we  find  a single  cir- 
cumstance that  presents  any  particular  evidence  in  favor  of 
immersion.  In  four  of  these  cases,  viz.  that  of  Paul,  the 
jailor,  Cornelius,  and  the  three  thousand,  the  circumstan- 
ces related  render  it  highly  improbable  that  immersion 
was  the  mode  in  which  they  were  baptised. 

Con. — There  is  a passage  in  Rom.  vi,  4,  which  I have 
often  heard  adduced  to  prove  that  immersion  is  the  only 
proper  mode  of  baptising,  viz  : u Buried  with  him ” (i.e 
Christ)  “ in  baptism , unto  death.” 

Mm. — -By  looking  at  the  preceding  verse,  vou  will  be 
F 2 


66  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

led  to  the  true  meaning  of  this  passage.  u As  many  of 
us  as  were  baptised  into  Jesus  Christ , were  baptised  into 
his  death  ; therefore,  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism,” 
<&c.  The  baptism  of  which  the  apostle  is  here  speaking, 
is  one  which  hr  mgs  us  into  a union  with  Christ ; by  it  we 
are  Ct  baptised  into  Jesus  Christ  ” Does  water  baptism 
effect  this  ? If  not,  it  is  not  the  baptism  of  which  the  apos- 
tle is  here  speaking.  This,  we  believe,  is  the  same  which 
he  speaks  of  in  similar  language,  in  1 Cor.  xii,  13.  “ By 

one  spirit  we  are  all  baptised  into  one  body  ” (i.e.  the  spir- 
itual body  of  Christ,  as  is  certain  from  the  connection), 
u whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or 
free,  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit.” 
This  change,  which  is  regeneration,  produces  the  death 
and  burial  of  the  old  man,  and  raises  us  up  to  newness  of 
life  ; which  is  typified  by  the  death,  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  The  same  thing  is  represented  in  the  next 
verse,  by  being  planted  with  Christ,  and  in  the  verse  after, 
by  being  crucified  with  Christ.  The  latter  expressions,  all 
will  admit,  are  to  be  taken  only  in  a spiritual  sense.  Why, 
then,  should  the  former,  standing  in  the  same  connection , 
and  designed  for  the  same  general  purpose , be  taken  in 
any  other  than  a spiritual  sense?  But  granting  that  this 
passage  refers  to  water  baptism,  and  that  the  mode  of  ad- 
ministering it  is  designed  to  represent  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  how  will  it  prove  that  immersion  is  to  be 
the  mode  ? Christ  was  not  buried  under  the  surface  of  the 
earth,  but  in  a sepulchre  above  the  ground,  and  probably 
was  laid  in  a niche  or  kind  of  shelf  in  the  side  of  it.  This 
would  not  much  resemble  an  immersion. 

Con.— I have  always  supposed  that  this  was  water  bap- 
tism ; but  that,  I must  acknowledge,  does  not  baptise  us  . 
into  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore,  it  seems,  is  not  the  bap- 
tism of  which  the  apostle  is  here  sp  eaking.  In  connection 
with  this  subject,  I would  thank  you,  Sir,  to  relate  your 
sentiments  on  sacramental  communion , with  some  of  the 
leading  arguments  in  support  of  those  sentiments. 

Min. — My  sentiment  on  this  point  is,  that  all  true 
Christians  ought  to  receive  each  other  in  communion  at 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  supper.  The  arguments 
that  might  be  adduced  in  support  of  this  sentiment  are  nu- 
merous ; the  most  important  of  which  may  be  ranked  un- 
dor  the  following  heads  : 1st.  Christ  requires  all  his  disci- 


G? 


Conversations  on  Baptism . 

pies  to  attend  upon  this  ordinance.  “ This  do”  (he  says) 
•4  in  remembrance  of  me.”  This  gives  them  all  a right  to 
partake  of  it,  wherever  it  may  be  administered  according 
to  his  direction.  And  if  all  Christians  have  a right  to  this 
ordinance,  they  ought  all  to  receive  and  commune  with 
each  other , when  attending  upon  this  institution.  If  Christ 
gives  to  all  his  people  a right  to  this  sacrament,  by  enjoin- 
ing it  upon  them  as  a duty  ; who  can  have  a right  to 
exclude  from  it  any  one,  that  gives  evidence  of  being  a 
Christian  ? 2d.  The  evident  design  of  this  sacrament  was 
to  be  a bond  of  union  in  the  family  of  Christ.  Here  they 
remember  him  as  their  common  Saviour ; show  them- 
selves a body  distinct  from  the  world  ; all  united  to  Christ 
and  to  each  other  in  the  bonds  of  Christian  love  ; sustain- 
ing towards  him  and  each  other,  the  most  endearing  rela- 
tions, as  members  of  the  same  family  ; and  entitled  to  the 
same  privileges  and  blessings.  This  union  is  denoted  by 
the  bread  which  typifies  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ  with 
its  members.  How  can  this  design  be  answered,  if  all 
Christians  do  not  receive  each  other  to  communion,  in 
partaking  of  the  Lord’s  supper  ? 3d.  The  direction  of  St. 
Paul  confirms  this  doctrine.  “ Receive  ye  one  another, 
as  Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God.”(m) 
Christ  received  us  as  soon  as  we  received  him,  and  solely 
on  the  ground  of  our  being  true  believers.  Thus  we  are 
directed  to  receive  one  another  ; to  receive  one  another  as 
Christians  ; and  of  course  partake  of  all  the  privileges 
which  Christians  are  to  enjoy.  How  can  this  be  done  if 
we  refuse  to  receive  and  commune  with  each  other  at  the 
table  of  the  Lord’s  supper  ? Arguments  might  be  multi- 
plied in  support  of  this  doctrine  ; but  the  duty  is  so  obvi- 
ous that  it  seems  needless  to  dwell  upon  them.  It  accords 
with  the  feelings  of  every  believer.  He  feels  an  ardent 
love  to  all  true  Christians  ; a cordial  and  endearing  union 
to  them,  so  far  as  they  have  the  spirit  of  Christ ; and  he 
ardently  desires  to  manifest  this,  by  receiving  them  to  fel- 
lowship in  all  Christian  ordinances.  This  union  is  pro- 
duced by  the  spirit  of  God  ; and  no  direction  which  is  giv- 
en in  his  word,  will  be  found  to  oppose  or  counteract  its 
influence.  As  this  sentiment  accords  with  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  feelings  of  all  true  Christians*  so  it 

m Romans  xw.7.\. 


OB  Conversations  on  Baptism. 

accords  with  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Christians,  and 
of  the  Christian  church  for  many  generations.  What- 
ever differences  of  opinion  there  were  in  the  church,  on 
points  not  essential  to  salvation  * and  notwithstanding  the 
great  number  of  different  sects  that  arose,  from  one  age  to 
another  ; yet  for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  from  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  it  was  the  universal  practice  of  all 
who  regarded  each  other  as  Christians,  to  receive  each 
other  and  hold  communion  together,  at  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord’s  supper.  This  we  learn  from  Dr.  “ Wall’s  His- 
tory from  Dr.  Mason’s  “ Plea  for  Catholic  Commu- 
nion and  from  many  other  writers.  This  sentiment,  we 

think,  is  confirmed  as  fully  by  the  scriptures,  by  reason, 
and  by  the  practice  of  the  church,  as  any  that  is  inculcated 
in  the  whole  of  the  sacred  volume.  And  when  we  look 
at  the  evils  resulting  from  the  opposite  practice,  we  cannot 
but  feel  that  it  is  a doctrine  of  much  importance. 

Con. — I have  now  presented  all  the  enquiries  in  which 
I feel  especially  interested,  relating  to  the  subjects  and 
mode  of  baptism ; and  I would  express,  Sir,  my  particu- 
lar obligations  to  you,  for  the  patience  you  have  exercised, 
and  the  instruction  I have  received  from  your  friendly  re- 
marks. This  subject  appears  in  a very  different  light  from 
that  in  which  I have  been  accustomed  to  view  it.  The 
consistency  and  harmony  between  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments ; the  spirituality  and  perpetuity  of  God’s  ever- 
lasting covenant ; its  accordance  in  all  ages  with  his  holy 
character,  and  with  the  spirit  of  all  his  holy  requirements  : 
with  the  invaluable  privileges  and  blessings  which  it  se- 
cures to  his  people,  are  considerations  with  which  I have 
been  much  interested,  and  will  be  the  means,  I trust,  off 
enabling  me  to  lead  a life,  in  some  good  measure,  com 
sistent  with  the  Christian  character. 

Min. — Iff  I have  assisted  you  in  any  degree,  to  attain  so 
important  an  object,  I shall  indeed  feel  amply  rewarded. 
May  the  Lord  direct  you  by  his  word  and  spirit  in  all  the 
ways  of  obedience  to  his  commands,  and  grant  you  an  in- 
terest in  the  distinguished  blessings  of  his  gracious  an  & 
everlasting  covenant 


'CONTENTS. 

Page * 

Conversation  I,  containing  a general  view  of  the  Church 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation ; showing  that  none 
but  believers  were  in  covenant  with  God,  or  could 
have  any  right  to  covenant  blessings,  5 

Conversation  II,  containing  a particular  description  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  with  evidence  of  its  contin- 
uance under  the  Christian  dispensation,  13 

Conversation  III,  containing  evidence  from  the  New 
Testament , that  the  church  is  the  same  both  under  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  85- 

Conversation  IV,  containing  arguments  in  support V of 
infant  baptism,  ] 31 

Conversation  V,  on  the  use  of  infant  baptism,  r 45 

Conversation  VI,  representing  the  mode  of  Christian 

baptism,  50 


ERRATA. 

Page  23,  line  18,  read  Jer.  xxxi,  3t. 

Page  44,  in  reference  (e),  dele  ib.  The  work  quoted  is 
u’  Worcester’s  Discourses  on  Infant  Baptism. v 


^ r- 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 


for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 


L161— 0-1096 


